#employeerights

Isn't that illegal?

Is it legal for a company of this size to refuse to disclose employee expectations? They say, “Talk to your manager for details about RTO regarding flexibility” and the managers say, “Sorry, we’re not permitted to grant exceptions.” They are playing games with people’s livelihoods never mind causing widespread anxiety and stress. There must be a law which says they must disclose and be clear about what is expected of employees.

I'm on FMLA and was just let go. I'm speechless.

Cisco: $85M in Penalties Since 2000

According to Good Jobs First's Violation Tracker, Cisco Systems and companies currently under its ownership have accumulated approximately $85M in penalties across 8 cases since 2000.

Here's the breakdown:

Government contracting: $48M

• 2010: $48M - False Claims Act case involving Cisco Systems and Westcon Group North America (DOJ)

Financial offenses: $20M

• 2006: $20M - Accounting fraud or deficiencies involving Scientific-Atlanta (SEC)

Employment-related: $11.4M

• 2009: $6.7M - Wage and hour violation (private state lawsuit)
• 2017: $2.7M - Employment discrimination involving Splunk (U.S. Department of Labor, OFCCP)
• 2020: $2M - Employment discrimination involving Cisco Systems (U.S. Department of Labor, OFCCP)

Consumer protection: $6M

• 2019: $6M - Privacy violation (multiple government agencies)

Workplace safety: $10K

• 2010: $5K - OSHA workplace safety violation
• 2024: $5K - OSHA workplace safety violation

A few observations:

• Roughly 56% of the total comes from a single $48M government contracting case.
• The $11.4M in employment-related penalties is particularly relevant to Cisco employees, especially given ongoing discussions about layoffs, compensation, and management practices.
• Two employment discrimination cases resulted in $4.7M in combined penalties.
• Some cases involve subsidiaries or acquired companies, including Scientific-Atlanta and Splunk, and may predate Cisco's ownership.
• These records span nearly two decades and don't necessarily reflect current practices.
• The database includes private lawsuit settlements as well as government enforcement actions, so not every amount represents a government fine.

What interests me most are the $6.7M wage and hour case and the two employment discrimination cases totaling $4.7M. Did these settlements lead to meaningful changes in how Cisco treats its employees?

Source: Good Jobs First, Violation Tracker (2026)

https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/

According to Good Jobs First's Violation Tracker, Intel and companies currently under its ownership have accumulated approximately $113M in penalties across 9 cases since 2000.

Here's the breakdown:

Competition-related: $104M

• 2015: $104M - Price-fixing or anti-competitive practices (private federal lawsuit)

Employment-related: $8.5M

• 2018: $5M - Wage and hour violation (private state lawsuit)
• 2019: $3.5M - Employment discrimination (U.S. Department of Labor, OFCCP)

Environmental: $213K

• 2014: $143K - Oregon environmental violation
• 2023: $31K - Oregon environmental violation
• 2026: $39K - EPA environmental violation

Other violations: $155K

• 2014: $144K - FCC telecommunications violation
• 2017: $5K - OSHA workplace safety violation
• 2013: $6K - FAA aviation safety violation

A few observations:

• Roughly 92% of the total comes from a single competition-related case.
• The $8.5M in employment-related penalties is arguably more relevant to Intel employees, particularly given ongoing discussions about compensation, layoffs, and management practices.
• These cases span more than two decades and don't necessarily reflect current practices.
• The database includes private lawsuit settlements as well as government enforcement actions, so not every amount represents a government fine.

What interests me most are the 2018 wage and hour case ($5M) and 2019 employment discrimination case ($3.5M). Did those settlements lead to any meaningful changes in how Intel treats its employees?

Source: Good Jobs First, Violation Tracker (2026)

https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/

I encourage all of you to reach out to your Senators and Congress members and let them know about the outsourcing of our professional roles. Banks get FDIC protection and many other tax benefits from the American People. Not to mention all our business.

The Communication Workers Union (CWU), through its United Tech and Allied Workers (UTAW) section, has now commenced the formal statutory process under UK employment law to secure workplace access at Dell UK, following its earlier voluntary request.

The process will now follow the relevant legal procedures, including involvement from the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) where required.

Stage Deadline
CWU statutory request received 30 October 2026
Dell must formally respond 20 November 2026
If Dell rejects or partially accepts Further 25 working days to negotiate, starting from its response
If no agreement is reached CWU can apply to the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC).

Secure CWU/UTAW Members’ Channel

The CWU’s UTAW section has established a secure, private communication channel to help members communicate, share information and organise collectively.

An email containing the invitation link has been sent to CWU/UTAW members. We recommend joining the channel using a pseudonym and avoiding personally identifiable information.

Security measures are in place to restrict unauthorised access, including attempts by Dell leadership, HR representatives or individuals seeking to disrupt or undermine legitimate trade union organising. These safeguards are intended to protect members’ privacy and provide a confidential environment for open discussion. As with any online platform, absolute confidentiality cannot be guaranteed.

Please use personal devices and accounts, rather than Dell equipment, for union-related communications, and conduct organising activities outside working hours.

Anyone wishing to become involved is encouraged to join the CWU through its UTAW section and participate in the channel.

Why Join the CWU/UTAW?

Importantly, the CWU has already secured positive outcomes for individual members at Dell.

It is worth emphasising that Dell does not need to recognise a trade union for collective bargaining for employees to benefit from union membership.

Under UK law, employees have the right to join a trade union and are protected against unlawful treatment because of their membership or protected union activities. Employees also have statutory rights to be accompanied by an eligible trade union representative at certain formal disciplinary and grievance hearings.

CWU/UTAW membership can provide advice, support and representation on matters including:

• Sales Compensation Plans (SCPs): Changes to commission structures, quotas, targets and payment arrangements, including requests for transparency around how compensation is calculated.
• Performance Improvement Plans (PIPs): Advice and representation where employees face formal performance management procedures.
• Pay and progression: Concerns about pay freezes, lack of salary increases and career development opportunities.
• Promotions and fairness: Concerns about transparency, consistency and perceived favouritism in promotion decisions.
• Workplace grievances: Support with formal complaints, employment disputes and concerns about management decisions.

Union Recognition Is Not the Only Objective

Dell UK now has unionised employees, regardless of whether Dell formally recognises the CWU for collective bargaining.

This is an important distinction. Union membership and statutory union recognition are two separate matters. Dell employees who have joined the CWU are already union members, with the associated legal protections and access to union support.

While formal recognition remains an important longer-term goal, it is not a prerequisite for employees to benefit from union membership today.

Individual representation, access to employment advice and the ability to challenge decisions through established procedures can already make a meaningful difference.

We encourage Dell UK employees who have concerns about their employment conditions, compensation or career progression to consider joining the CWU/UTAW.

Moving Communications to the Private CWU/UTAW Channel

As the statutory process progresses, we will gradually move away from posting updates on this public forum.

Unfortunately, discussions here frequently become dominated by unconstructive comments and repeated speculation that Dell will simply offshore UK jobs in response to union activity.

People are entitled to their opinions, but we are not seeking a wider debate about the merits of trade unions, nor are we particularly interested in engaging with speculative commentary about moving jobs overseas.

Our purpose in posting here has always been straightforward: to communicate factual information directly to Dell UK employees about their legal rights, union membership and the ongoing statutory process.

The private CWU/UTAW channel provides a more appropriate environment for those who genuinely wish to stay informed, ask questions and become involved.

Dell UK employees are already exercising their legal right to union membership and representation. Formal recognition would be a further step, not the beginning of unionisation.

The statutory access process is now underway. Employees do not need to wait for formal recognition to exercise their existing rights or seek support from the CWU/UTAW.
Dell UK workers are now unionised.

Your silence only protects your harassers.

The Communication Workers Union (CWU) has formally written to Dell UK requesting voluntary access to UK workplaces, allowing union representatives to engage directly with employees, explain their employment rights, and provide information about trade union membership and representation.

This is a request for workplace access, not an application for formal trade union recognition.

What happens next?

Under the new UK Employment Rights Act 2025 framework, which introduced statutory workplace access rights from 30 October 2026, the following process applies to qualifying statutory requests:

• 15 working days: Dell must respond to a formal statutory access request.
• 25 working days: Where access is not agreed in full, a negotiation period allows the employer and union to seek agreement.
• Compulsory access: If agreement cannot be reached, the union can apply to the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC), which has powers to determine and enforce workplace access arrangements.

Access may include physical visits to Dell offices, digital communications, or a combination of both.

Dell must inform employees of their trade union rights

From 1 January 2027, new legislation will require employers, including Dell UK, to provide workers with written information explaining their right to join a trade union.

This represents an important strengthening of employee awareness and workplace rights.

The wider employment reforms are being implemented in stages throughout 2026 and 2027.

Why is this particularly relevant to Dell UK employees?

The request comes during a period of considerable uncertainty across Dell UK, including:

• Ongoing restructuring and redundancies.
• Office relocations and increased commuting pressures for affected employees.
• Growing dissatisfaction surrounding commission structures and compensation arrangements.
• Uncertainty about the potential impact of artificial intelligence on existing roles and future employment.
• Employee frustration surrounding the implementation of new internal tools and systems, that perhaps have created additional operational challenges.

Against this backdrop, access to independent workplace advice, representation and support is increasingly important.

What does this mean for employees?

Trade union membership is a legal right in the UK. Employees are entitled to join an independent trade union, seek advice and obtain representation where applicable.

Employees do not need their employer’s permission to join a union, and membership does not depend on the union being formally recognised by Dell.

Union membership can provide access to independent advice and representation on matters including redundancy, restructuring, workplace grievances, disciplinary proceedings and employment rights.

In the current climate, we would strongly recommend that Dell UK employees seriously consider joining a trade union.

With continued restructuring, changes to working arrangements and increasing uncertainty about the future of employment, independent representation and access to professional advice may prove increasingly valuable.

Employees should understand their rights, know their options and make informed decisions about their future.

Gp and mck have made everything untenable. Everyone’s complaining, understandably so, but what can we do? Is there at all an option to unionize? Who would be interested in that

A new person that was hired about 19 years old, I don't expect her to know better. Said she was sick and came in because the, the new bright-minded ASM. Gave her a guilt trip about. Calling out in the future of her career at lowes. And then started asking her. Detailed questions about her medical condition. And giving advice. I was just totally. Like, I couldn't believe what I heard. I believe her a hundred percent. She's too d-mb to lie.

The U.S. government has put employers on notice over practices that disadvantage American workers. Microsoft has faced prominent federal scrutiny and publicly defended its visa practices. Instacart has settled allegations that its recruitment favored temporary-visa workers over U.S. and American applicants. The same scrutiny must reach IBM.

IBM has made its commitment to American workers part of its public pitch. In an April 28, 2025 announcement, Chairman and CEO Arvind Krishna declared: “We have been focused on American jobs and manufacturing since our founding 114 years ago.” That carefully polished story collides with the company’s employment record. American factories do not erase years of discrimination disputes or IBM’s efforts to keep employment records out of public view. A company that trades on American jobs should have to answer for how it treats the Americans doing them.

American workers must not become the default casualties of global restructuring simply because their jobs are easier to eliminate. Where stronger protections abroad require employers to justify cuts against local business conditions, multinationals should not exploit weaker U.S. protections by loading the reductions onto Americans. The revenue they generate and the performance of the American business must count. Weaker employment protections should never become a license to make American workers pay for problems elsewhere.

IBM’s employment history is more troubling than its patriotic marketing suggests. The Second Circuit’s August 4, 2023 opinion records a 2020 EEOC finding of reasonable cause to believe IBM discriminated against older workers in the United States because of their age. These were workers in the very country whose jobs and manufacturing IBM now invokes to burnish its image. The court also upheld IBM’s request to keep certain documents from confidential employment arbitrations sealed. It enforced the confidentiality arrangements, leaving those records outside public view. That history belongs alongside the speeches about American jobs.

Another pending EEOC case concerns Kenneth McTigue, a U.S. IBM employee with nearly 30 years of service. A retention order issued by IBM’s legal department expressly records allegations of age discrimination, national origin discrimination, and retaliation by IBM. It identifies the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) as the investigating US government agency. It also explicitly names IBM programs: Project Falcon, the resource action Sandstone, and the Transform to Grow (T2G) committee. It specifies records concerning those project objectives, benchmarking, headcount-reduction targets, workforce strategy and the planning and execution of workforce actions. It also identifies records concerning compensation and McTigue’s demotion and forced international relocation.

IBM’s own preservation instruction scope raises the prospect of something much larger than one employee’s treatment. Those records could help establish whether the decisions challenged by McTigue reflected common practices affecting other employees. The question is whether his case exposes a wider, systemic problem in how IBM decides whose jobs and careers are expendable.

The emails use stark, controlling language: “Do not forward this document for any reason.” The directive also instructs recipients not to communicate with McTigue about the matter. Its confidentiality provision includes the qualification “unless otherwise directed by an IBM attorney or as permitted by law.” Even with that qualification, the message reads like a warning: keep the document contained, keep discussion constrained, and do not speak to the employee whose allegations are at issue. This is language that can stifle discussion by making silence feel like the safest choice even where speaking is legally permitted. That silence serves IBM. The less information circulates, the harder it becomes for employees to connect experiences, for outsiders to ask informed questions, and for the public to challenge the company’s carefully managed image.

Control the information. Protect the brand. American workers should not have to fight through a wall of controlled communication to get discrimination allegations taken seriously.

Put IBM’s workforce decisions under a public spotlight. Demand to know who was targeted, who was protected, and whether business performance or the ease of dismissal drove those choices. Make the executives responsible answer those questions publicly. IBM’s brand gets no free pass.

The quantum investment makes that demand more urgent. On September 16, 2026, the Commerce Department announced a final CHIPS research and development award of up to $1 billion to Anderon, an IBM subsidiary, to advance a quantum semiconductor foundry. Public backing for America’s technological future should bring stronger expectations of accountability. A company entrusted with helping build America’s future should have to answer hard questions about its treatment of America’s workers. IBM’s quantum ambitions should intensify scrutiny of its employment practices.

No more taxpayer backing for IBM without a public accounting of its treatment of American workers.

Free republication permitted and encouraged.

Humana is playing a nasty game. The are laying people off and before you can get your severance you have to sign an agreement that gives up so many of your rights. It is as if they are forcing people to be silent about being treated unfairly, retaliated against and humiliated by leadership. They offer severance which is 2 weeks for every year worked and an AIP payout the following year. This job market is terrible but allowing Humana to continue to get away with this is not good. Humana leadership is horrible and HR IS NOT for the employee. They support and protect horrible managers

If Blackbaud expects employees to depend exclusively on its paycheck, it should be prepared to answer a straightforward question: What responsibility is it willing to accept for the financial security it demands employees surrender elsewhere?

For employees unfamiliar with the exclusivity policy, go look it up on the HUB. Read the wording and consider what it means for your ability to support yourself and your household.

Because exclusivity has a price. A company should not get to demand it simply by putting a prohibition in an employee handbook.

People take second jobs for reasons that deserve more respect than suspicion. They have mortgages, medical bills, dependents, debt, and emergencies. Sometimes a second income is the difference between making progress and falling behind. Calling that a loyalty problem is an extraordinarily convenient way to avoid discussing whether one paycheck is enough.

Blackbaud has every reason to protect confidential information, prevent actual conflicts of interest, and require employees to perform the work they are paid to do. Those concerns justify specific, proportionate rules. They do not justify a sweeping claim over an employee’s ability to earn a living outside their working hours.

An employment agreement purchases labor under agreed conditions. It should not purchase veto power over someone’s entire economic life.

The imbalance is glaring. A company can spread its financial risk across customers, investments, and business opportunities. Under a blanket exclusivity policy, employees are expected to concentrate their livelihood in a single employer—and absorb the consequences if that arrangement stops meeting their needs.

Where is the reciprocal commitment? Does exclusivity come with guaranteed employment? Compensation that adjusts to an employee’s actual financial obligations? A promise that the company will cover the shortfall when an unexpected medical bill arrives?

Without a meaningful commitment in return, the message is brutally simple: your financial vulnerability is your responsibility, but your efforts to reduce it require our permission.

That is a remarkably self-serving definition of loyalty.

For someone already working full time and still struggling, a second job represents additional effort, lost evenings, and less rest. Punishing that person for trying to stabilize their household adds corporate discipline to an already exhausting situation. It treats financial survival as misconduct.

A sensible policy would address demonstrable problems: conflicting schedules, misuse of company resources, compromised confidentiality, or failures to meet job expectations. Judge employees by their performance and conduct. Require a concrete business reason before restricting what they do with their own time.

Blackbaud should be able to explain precisely what harm a restriction prevents. “We expect exclusivity” is a demand, not an explanation.

If a company wants to be an employee’s only source of earned income, it should make that dependence worth accepting. It should not simply forbid the alternatives and leave the employee to figure out the bills.

Do not allow your direct leaders to attempt to normalize layoffs as though it were just part of doing business and should not be considered personal.

Layoffs are VERY personal and should be considered as such. Some people never recover and end up losing their homes and end up homeless.

SPEAK OUT!!!

This is coming

I disclosed my pregnancy to the company on October 6, 2027, and was notified this afternoon 11/4/2026 that my position was being eliminated as part of a company restructuring. I am in Data Science team, based in US.

The company has not provided clear information about the overall scope of the layoffs, including how many employees or what percentage of the workforce were impacted. Given the timing, I have concerns about whether this was truly part of a broader company-wide restructuring or whether the decision may have been selective.

If you are also impacted or know someone in your team/company are impacted by this round of layoff, I am appreciate if you can share :

1. When were you notified of your layoff?
2. Which teams, departments, or functions are you in? Were entire teams or functions eliminated, or were individual employees selectively impacted within otherwise retained teams?
3. Do you know whether other departments were also affected by the layoffs?
4. Do you know approximately when the layoff decisions were made or put into effect?
5. Was your position actually eliminated, or were your responsibilities reassigned to someone else?
6. Were layoffs limited to certain offices, locations, or business units, or were they company-wide? If anyone knows

Any information, even small datapoints, would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for helping me understand what actually happened.

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), on-call time is considered compensable work time if the employee is "engaged to wait"—meaning their freedom is so heavily restricted that they cannot use the time for their own purposes.

The employee must remain physically on the employer’s premises or very close by.

The employee must respond to calls within a matter of minutes or face severe penalties.

Geographical, activity, or consumption restrictions prevent them from living their life freely (such as not being able to leave the house, run errands, or drink alcohol).

Any time the employee is actually dispatched or actively responding to a call must always be paid.

Conducting meetings to discuss who is on-call and not compensating them is against the law.

Ask them if they would be happy to get their Health, Prescription, DOD member insurance through Hyderabad office.

You must write if you need a change.

I work in IT, and here's something worth keeping in mind.

Be careful what you say during Microsoft Teams calls. Even when a meeting isn't being recorded, it is still being transcribed. There's a bot that joins calls in the background, and you won't necessarily see it.

Your laptop activity is monitored, which you probably already know. What you might not realize is that activity on internal company websites can be logged down to individual clicks and keystrokes.

Some people will say you're foolish to discuss anything sensitive on company-owned equipment. They'd be correct.

Fidelity is forcing a team to relocate to the city centre, despite the existing office remaining open and the work being perfectly doable from there. Alongside reduced WFH, employees are facing significantly longer commutes for seemingly no good reason.

Why make life harder for employees when a perfectly reasonable alternative exists? Has anyone successfully challenged a forced relocation?

Senior position being made redundant because they have absorbed role into rest of the team without any prior knowledge or discussion. This was clearly looked at while on long term absence and the person in question is not being rated against their peers even though they have more tenure and experience than many on the team. This company is unprofessional.

I know these layoffs are painful for everyone, and I respect the financial and emotional impact we’re all facing. But seeing comments blaming H-1B employees for taking jobs is hurtful. We are colleagues facing the same layoffs, with additional uncertainty about whether our families can stay in the country.

I’ve worked at Comcast since 2009 and have been waiting nearly 17 years for permanent residency, following the immigration rules throughout. My employment ends December 31, and my deadline to find another eligible job is January 30, 2027. Otherwise, my family may have to leave—disrupting my children’s school year and potentially forcing us to sell our home.

I’m not asking for special treatment. I’m asking that we avoid blaming or discriminating against colleagues because of their visa status or nationality. We’ve built our lives here and contributed to this company and our communities. We all deserve respect and compassion during this difficult time.

For cy 2026 bonus, if you were laid off in October , are you eligible for a prorated portion?

Or say if you get laid off or leave in Jan 2027, are you eligible to get something for 2026?

Please don’t make fun just trying to understand

I was recently approved for short term disability. NOw i am wondering if i am a target for getting layed off. I just couldn't handle the depression the job was causing me. I couldn't pay attention. I honestly think, being layed off would be a blessing in disguise.

Yes — severance doesn't block UI

• California — yes
• Illinois — yes, even if paid over time
• Washington — yes, in most cases
• North Carolina — yes
• Michigan — yes, if severance is under 1.6x your weekly benefit; reduced above that

Yes, with conditions

• New York — yes if lump sum; no/delayed if weekly payments exceed $504/wk
• New Jersey — yes if lump sum; no/delayed if paid in installments
• Texas — yes if lump sum; no/delayed if salary continuation
• Georgia — conditional; lump sum often spread over weeks (severance ÷ weekly pay)
• Pennsylvania — yes up to 40% of state average annual wage (~$28,154 for 2026); deducted above that
• Massachusetts — yes up to $600/wk; reduced above that

No — delays or reduces UI

• Florida — no; counts as income, disqualifies weeks equal to severance ÷ weekly wage
• Minnesota — no; delays if severance is FICA wages
• Ohio — no; can reduce or delay

Rule of thumb everywhere: lump sum is treated better than salary continuation, and always report the severance. Rules vary and change — verify with your state unemployment office.

Any idea if the VBO offer we received would be the same as layoffs?

Curious if severance is paid out in one lump sum. And if not, is the COBRA subsidy the full severance period?

On se tape encore une fois une sale nouvelle : 65 personnes sur la sellette cette fois, après une première charrette quasi identique juste avant. Notre CSE ? Une putain de mascarade, complètement inutile et totalement vendu à la direction, ils mangent dans leur main, c’est gerbant.
Faut qu'on se bouge le cul et qu'on parte en grève illico. C'est le seul moyen de leur mettre la pression et d'arrêter cette deuxième vague de licenciements. Sinon, ils vont tout délocaliser dans des pays low-cost et nous jeter comme des malpropres pendant que les actionnaires s'en mettent plein les fouilles.

A Georgia appeals court ruled against Delta Air Lines after the company reduced workers' compensation benefits for a baggage handler who injured his lower back while lifting luggage.

https://www.hcamag.com/us/specialization/employment-law/deltas-pay-cut-to-injured-baggage-handler-didnt-fly-in-court/595148

Was anyone else approved or in process of a telecommuting accommodation and then got laid off?

An auto parts manufacturing facility is now the subject of a lawsuit. Workers claim they were not given adequate notice before their employment was terminated. The legal action stems from recent layoffs at the plant. This situation has created significant concern among the affected employees. The lawsuit seeks to address the alleged lack of proper notification.

Murfreesboro, Tennessee

https://www.wkrn.com/video/sudden-layoffs-spark-legal-battle-in-murfreesboro/12312112/

So on 9/16 we had an organizational meeting stating we would need to start working with redeployment teams. That never happened. We were never contacted by those teams. Many of us have called HR and they have told us we are not under redeployment or RIF currently. But today- there was an email that went out saying goodbye to a few people and acknowledged there contributions. But still no formal date. I would encourage everyone affected by this to file formal HR complaints and keep all of these emails. I am also contacting an employment lawyer. The email in question came from Sandra Rubio. There was also a top secret meeting on Monday 10/26 from her that stated more cuts this Friday.

For those of you who have been notified Is the whole "you can stay for two months" included in the severance or separate?

I’m wondering if anyone has insight into how the company is handling layoffs, particularly when it comes to pregnant employees. Has anyone heard anything or know how layoffs might affect employees who are pregnant or planning to go on maternity leave?

Does anyone have any idea what the severance package is like for ANI these days?

Anyone else that was laid off the first week in September get their severance payment (minus the 22% for taxes) today? I was told repeatedly that I had to wait 60 days and former employees who were laid off before me said they didn’t get theirs for 60 days. I’m glad to get it early but also a little cautious that it may have been done by mistake.

:(