Category Archives: Philosophy – Employee Rights

Are You In “Survival Mode?”

An employee (client) remarked to me that when she worked for her former employer- which had a difficult manager and stressful environment- workers there lived in “survival mode.”

This phrase rang true to me.   I talk to many employees in bad work situations, who are painfully aware they are miserable, and dread going to work each day.  Their goals are immediate: to avoid the boss’s wrath, to survive the next tirade, to survive the day.  Such employees usually hold onto some sort of abstract hope that things will improve, but when the day-to-day details play out, there are no tangible steps toward improvement and no positive changes are underway.  Each day is just patching a different hole in the dam.

So what keeps employees at these environments?  Often, it is money.  Or, the lack of better opportunities.

But most often, it is the employees’ perception they can’t make decent money elsewhere, or find better opportunities and work conditions elsewhere, that keeps them locked in place, stuck in “survival mode.”  Too often, when I ask a troubled employee “have you looked for a different job?” the answer is something like “I won’t be able to find another job that pays this much,” or “No one will hire someone like me.”

Many employees come to believe (whether consciously or subconsciously) that the way everything is, is the way it HAS to be.  It doesn’t.

Employees really can control our own destinies.  We can proactively: (1) identify what our dream job’s characteristics are; (2) identify how we can get to, or make, those characteristics a reality; and (3) make it happen.

Or… we can choose to peruse job ads, find a job, discover that job provides a hellish existence, and believe ourselves to be stuck there, living our work life in “survival mode.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Philosophy - Employee Rights

Don’t File or Prolong a Lawsuit “Out of Principle”

This is a tip not only for employees, but also for employers and anyone else who is thinking about litigation.

If you are thinking of filing a civil lawsuit, or gearing up for a vigorous defense of a lawsuit (e.g. “we’re not going to pay that s.o.b. a dime”), you should know that starting or prolonging a lawsuit is only good for a select few things (see below).

What a lawsuit is NOT good at doing is proving a “principle,” or obtaining any type of emotional satisfaction.  To the contrary, the longer the litigation goes, both parties in a lawsuit usually become more and more emotionally-drained.  Usually, both parties, and especially the defendant/respondent, become more financially-drained over time.  (This disadvantage does not apply to the parties’ lawyers, who often get paid more the longer things go).

Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under Employee Tip - Considering a Legal Action, Philosophy - Employee Rights

Opportunity in Conflict

If you’re in an employment dispute, it’s all too easy to get wrapped up in negativity: finger-pointing, petty arguments, defensiveness, close-mindedness and rash judgments.  I’ve made these mistakes myself, as an attorney who is not a personal party to these disputes– I can only imagine how hard it is for the disputing parties to set aside hard feelings.  But it can be done.  Ultimately, conflicts get resolved.  Sometimes, through a legal judgment.  More often, through settlement– that is, through an agreement reached at some later point when the parties come around and work together.  Why not work together sooner?

When feeling negative, I try to remind myself to look at conflict as an opportunity.  An opportunity to DO several things.  To be courteous when the situation makes it hard to.  To state my position in a manner that is factual and not offensive.  To follow the Rules- and look to them as a beacon in times of turmoil and stress.  To, when upset, count to ten (or one hundred).

Conflict also presents an opportunity to NOT do things.  To refuse to take the bait, when insulted.  To, as Will Rogers once said, “Never miss a good chance to shut up.”  To refuse to lose one’s cool.

Of course, all of this is easier to say than do.  But I believe that someday, I’ll reach a point where I consistently maintain this approach.  What about you?

Leave a comment

Filed under Philosophy - Employee Rights

“Negotiate?!” Acme Co. Doesn’t “Negotiate” Our Non-Competes

A little story for those of you considering a new job where the employer is asking you to sign a non-compete agreement.  Particularly, if they are giving you the vibe that their non-compete is a take-it-or-leave-it sort of dealeo…

Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under Philosophy - Employee Rights

Are You an A@$ole Boss? Take This Test, and Find Out

Are you a jerk boss?  Before you answer, please do not rely on your self-awareness (or lack thereof) alone– unbridled confidence gets the real jerks in trouble.

Take this test to find out if you’re a “jerk” (my term), or, as the test’s author puts it, an “A@$ole”.

The test was developed by Robert Sutton, PhD, author of “The No A@$ole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace, and Surviving One That Isn’t.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Humor, Philosophy - Employee Rights, Uncategorized

Montana: The Promised Land for Employees?

Montana is the only State that requires employers to have a good reason (or “good cause”) to fire an employee.

Under Montana law, “A discharge is wrongful … if … the discharge was not for good cause.”

Wisconsin, like most States, is not a “good cause” State and is instead an “employment-at-will” State.  This means in WI an employer may fire an employee “for good cause, for no cause, or even for cause morally wrong, without (the employer) being thereby guilty of legal wrong.”  Brockmeyer v. Dun & Bradstreet, 113 Wis.2d 561, 567 (WI SC 1983).

So, which State is better?  Is Montana an employee’s promised land, or another attempt at utopia that’s bound to fail?  Should Wisconsin be a “good cause” State?  I don’t have an answer, other than to say WI law should be better to employees than it is.

3 Comments

Filed under Philosophy - Employee Rights

How NOT to Communicate

A big-firm attorney was fired within days of having a miscarriage, and wrote a scathing email to her coworkers.  You can read it here.

Based on the email and the facts as I know them, I believe the employee was right that she was treated unfairly.  So, why is this post titled “How NOT to Communicate?”  Because, it is not enough to be right.  People who are in-the-right must still (1) pay attention to signs that your work environment is NOT right and NOT going to change (e.g. EARLY in your job tenure pay attention if your boss wants you to work huge numbers of hours, and shows little regard for your family); (2) proactively change your environment (e.g. seek a transfer to a more humane boss, or seek jobs/interviews with more humane employers who will respect your need to take time for family, pregnancy, etc.); and (3) communicate politely, IN THOSE INSTANCES communication could make positive changes happen.

It is a sobering fact that sometimes there is nothing you can change within your present environment.  Sometimes you can be 100% right, and communicate with complete honesty and civility, and stand absolutely no chance of changing the status quo.  Here, the employee was fired, the damage done.  What good does a scathing email do?  It surely made her feel better the moment she sent it off.  But the effects linger, and readers debate whether or not her career may be finished.

This employee would have been better off remaining silent, allowing herself a clear route to a new job where she can cultivate her correct values, and leave the old environment behind to canabalize itself.  But instead she took that parting shot, and as a result she can’t leave the old world behind.

Leave a comment

Filed under Philosophy - Employee Rights

Dark Side, Schmark Side

I disagree with the many employee-side attorneys (most of whom are great folks) who I’ve heard refer to employers and their attorneys as the “Dark Side.” I know why this is said. Employee-side attorneys get frustrated with bad tactics we sometimes (albeit repeatedly) observe from some opponents: the hiding of information, the game-playing (e.g. musical-chairs with decision-makers and reasons for termination), the deponents’ “I-can’t-recalls” and the periodic bald-faced lie. I see these things too.

Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under Philosophy - Employee Rights