#ethics

It doesn't matter if those posts saying ppl were poor performers or have poor mental health came from bots (which is kinda worse since it implies the company itself may be behind them) or from actual trolls, OT should care enough to shut this down. I know this is a random website were ppl can air grievances, and probably not on the radar of executives, but there is a LOT of traffic here compared to other companies on thelayoff.com. The fact that this site is blocked on company machines should tell you that they actually do know. If all of that is true, OT is absolutely one of the worst companies ever. I mean, ppl knocking each other over to get to their desks, needing armour (lol) calling people d-mb and poor performers, saying ppl have poor mental health. There may be lawsuits here for those let go for slander. All the while claiming the company is hiring hundreds and the stock is amazing, etc. When anyone with a smart phone knows any of this is not true. I would suggest that everyone just stop posting here and see what happens after a week or so. Of no real people post and we still keep getting these nonsense posts, it's time to take the layoff updates somewhere else.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.hud.gov/news/hud-no-26-081&ved=2ahUKEwjovsrG5oKYAxXnK1kFHdHQOVYQFnoECCMQAQ&sqi=2&usg=AOvVaw3YMKidn74RhKWlCzioM9Rh

1. "The black talent pool is limited."
2. Requirement of diverse candidates on all jobs over $100K --> fictitious interviews with diverse candidates --> settlement with investor pool over said fictitious interviews.
3. Gutting the mortgage program and investment to increase black/minority mortgages, with presumably separate underwriting standards --> investigation into violation of Fair Lending Act.

Wonder how much more support black minorities can take. Let me guess, it was Stumpf's fault.

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/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/nov/07/israel-intelligence-cisco-gaza-palestine

Anyone hear about the head of payables convicted of voter fraud?

This company is as corrupt as ever and they are absolutely gutting risk&compliance while bringing back the compensation plans

who even is the new guy? how did the "advising" engagement start? was it competitive? was he a paid consultant thru his own firm or another vendor? was there any real search before his appointment or was the outcome predetermined? if he spent a year advising, did he also evaluate TCs work, because that's a conflict of interest if his advice led to TCs departure.

JR and BR presumably know each other from Capital Group, so who pushes back on BR if the decisions are wrong? he helps pick his replacement, and 12-18 months is a loonnngggg audition for the role. even tho LinkedIn says he's retired, is he a candidate, who's now on both sides of the search for CIO?

will more of BR's friends from Capital Group start showing up in leadership positions or consulting engagements?

will JR drift towards Accenture, given his Accenture background?

I think he's the seventh or eighth CIO in six years. I don't see him lasting long either. if the churn is so high one has to wonder whether the problem really lies with the person in the chair or with NM...

Could this happen to Shell?

NEW YORK (AP) — Defense contractor Lockheed Martin has agreed to pay $29.5 million to settle claims by President Donald Trump’s administration that it discriminated against white workers through its efforts to promote diversity and equity in an internal bonus program.

Lockheed Martin will pay $22 million to the U.S. government to resolve claims that it failed to comply with anti-discrimination requirements in its federal contracts, according to the settlement announced late Tuesday by the Justice Department and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

In addition, Lockheed Martin will pay $7.5 million to more than 1,000 affected employees as part of a settlement with the EEOC, which had been investigating the company for violating Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race.

https://apnews.com/article/lockheed-martin-dei-lawsuit-5c6f6fa12858a9c586d6bf57eb571c68

Why? Because we are the problem.

Centene Federal Lobbying & Spending
• Spending: Centene reported $710,000 in in-house federal lobbying spending during Q3 2025 alone, contributing to a multi-decade federal lobbying footprint totaling over $48 million.
• In-House Team: The federal in-house lobbying roster includes Simone Myrie, Erik Nicholas Hames, Danny Ly, and Jacqueline Baggett.
• Outside Firms: Centene retains external consulting and lobbying firms, including Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, BGR Group, Williams & Jensen, Continental Strategy, and ALB Solutions.
• Revolving Door: Over 50% of Centene’s named federal lobbyists have previous experience in the federal government or Congress.
Political Contributions & Coalitions
• Political Action Committee (CentenePAC): Disburses non-partisan federal and state-level candidate contributions.
• Industry Coalitions: Centene allocates significant funding to major healthcare trade associations and advocacy groups—including AHIP, the Association for Community Affiliated Plans (ACAP), and the Business Roundtable—to align on broader policy advocacy.
• State Engagement: Centene maintains dedicated external affairs and government relations teams across its regional health plans (such as Health Net) to navigate state-level legislative and regulatory rules.

As per Q3 quarterly report: “The Teradata litigation claims had been pending in the U.S. federal court since 2018 when Teradata Corporation, Teradata US, Inc.
and Teradata Operations, Inc. (collectively “Teradata”) filed a civil lawsuit against SAP SE, SAP America, Inc. and SAP Labs, LLC. A
provision of €387 million for a potential settlement amount and related legal fees had been recognized as of December 31, 2025.
End of February 2026, SAP and Teradata settled the legal dispute and agreed to withdraw all pending lawsuits. As a result of the settlement, an additional expense of €29 million (Q1 2025: €0 million) was recorded. SAP paid the full settlement amount of US$480 million (€408 million) in March 2026.”

Everyone needs to ban together and do this. Ethics, your states eeoc, state senators, news media, ethics etc.. Anywhere you can to expose what they are doing. Lets see the foreigner talk his way out of having to explain why hes taking jobs from americans, whys he’s falsifying your performance, taking your merit, taking a % of your bonus and investing it into bny stock that you dont want so he can make it appear like bny is doing great. You get sc--wed and he makes out. Look up his pay details because its vile. We have to expose this dou--e bag in high numbers. Hes sc--wing us over and so are his minions so lets take them down together.

https://www.kitv.com/news/business/nvidia-launches-investigation-into-ceo-jensen-huang-over-foreign-intelligence-concerns/article_e7a51f2d-0322-5a04-8f72-c3d67296057d.html

Is HT next? Nvidia investigates CEO Jensen Huang’s relationship with alleged Chinese spy
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/11/08/nvidia-jensen-huang-investigation-china-spy.html

I hear he is on the list. All kinds of data theft and unauthorized access, misuse of funds.

But ceo salary and bonus increase. Seem fair? Nope. He’s a sc-mbag. Whoever supports these a-holes you need to look in the mirror.

"If state law doesn't require it, we're not paying it". So much for integrity or doing the right thing.

https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00100321/

The official Federal Election Commission (FEC) data for the L3Harris Technologies, Inc. PAC (ID: C00100321) maps out the financial mechanics of how the defense giant attempted to purchase political influence during the 2025–2026 election cycle.

However, looking at the strict financial delta between what the PAC raised and what it spent, these figures reveal a massive, defensive cash drain that could act as a direct catalyst for internal cost-cutting and workforce layoffs in 2027.

The FEC Financial Breakdown (Jan 1, 2025 – Oct 14, 2026)

Total Receipts (Money In): $1,875,000.56, heavily driven by itemized individual contributions from L3Harris executives and high-level managers ($1,510,903.28).

Total Disbursements (Money Out): $2,297,030.00, representing direct campaign contributions to politicians and other political action committees ($2,236,600.00).

The Deficit: The PAC ran a severe deficit of -$422,029.44, outspending its fundraising baseline to aggressively lobby both sides of the aisle before the midterms.

Cash On Hand: Due to this aggressive spending, the PAC's cash reserves dropped from $1.59 million at the start of 2025 down to $1,175,326.09 right before the elections.

How this Deficit and Corporate Strategy Lead to Layoffs

While PAC money is technically separate from operational corporate revenue, the deficit and the contribution patterns point to an impending operational squeeze:

1. Squeezing Executives for Political Cash Triggers White-Collar Fatigue

The FEC data shows that $1.51 million came directly out of the pockets of itemized individual L3Harris employees (mostly C-suite executives, vice presidents, and division directors).

The Squeeze: Corporate leadership frequently exerts immense internal pressure on upper and middle management to contribute to the corporate PAC to protect the company's contract pipeline.

The Resulting Exodus: When middle managers are being financially squeezed to support a PAC that is running a half-million-dollar deficit, while simultaneously navigating a toxic post-Kubasik corporate culture, the incentive to leave spikes. High-performing program directors will execute a defensive talent exodus to commercial tech companies where they don't face mandatory political tithing.

1. Failed Political Bets Mean Cancelled Programs

The fact that the PAC burned through an extra $422,000 to heavily influence committee members means L3Harris was playing a desperate defensive game. Now that Democrats have successfully flipped control of the House of Representatives, much of the money spent courting specific panels is entirely wasted.

The Layoff Trigger: Incoming Armed Services Chairman Adam Smith and Oversight Chairman Robert Garcia do not have to respect the lobbying pipeline of a company currently undergoing multi-million dollar DOJ fraud investigations. If the newly empowered committees freeze or audit the private-equity backed modernization programs L3Harris bought access to, those specific software and systems engineering teams will be laid off because their billable project codes will vanish.

1. Operational Over-Leveraging Forces Cost Restructuring

To cover the PAC's aggressive spending and cushion the blow of the $84 million in combined DOJ settlements and the $80 million Kubasik exit package, new CEO Sam Mehta must preserve the company's cash flow.

When a corporation is leaking cash across its legal defense funds, executive payouts, and political lobbying arms, it balances the ledger by cutting labor overhead. Non-essential administrative staff, corporate recruiters, marketing units, and middle-management layers will be targeted for structural layoffs to offset these compounding institutional deficits.

People have said you reap what you sow. Zero transparency in how things are run and excessive corporate greed will be their undoing.

L3Harris Technologies (NYSE: LHX) is prominently swept into the broader storm facing defense contractors, but it faces a unique mix of congressional scrutiny, corporate scandals, and recent historical settlements.

While legacy primes like Lockheed Martin and tech firms like Anduril are facing heat for political favoritism or special procurement access, L3Harris is a critical target for incoming committee chairs due to its role in national security infrastructure, federal pricing transparency, and high-profile executive shake-ups.

Incoming House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith (D-WA) has explicitly stated his intention to target "sweetheart deals and favoritism" by examining how the Pentagon allocated unique capital funding streams, loans, and equity investments over the past two years. L3Harris is widely recognized as a key player in the Pentagon's defense industrial equity investment strategy. Lawmakers plan to audit whether L3Harris and a select few other massive firms received unfair competitive advantages or direct financial favoritism via specialized, fast-tracked modernization programs backed by private equity networks.

Similar to Boeing being grilled over $800 soap dispensers, progressive lawmakers are pointing to L3Harris’s track record as an example of why strict price-justification legislation is needed. L3Harris recently entered into a massive $62 million federal settlement with the Department of Justice. The DOJ alleged that a division of the company knowingly supplied the Department of Defense with incomplete or inaccurate cost data for intelligence and communication systems (such as ROVER and VORTEX), causing the military to grossly overpay. The company also paid a $21.8 million settlement to resolve allegations that they double-billed the DoD for basic parts and materials charging for nuts, bolts, and hardware both as an additive blanket factor and as individually billed items.

Oversight panels frequently latch onto corporate governance issues, and L3Harris is reeling from a massive leadership disruption that has drawn shareholder litigation and congressional interest. On August 17, 2026, L3Harris abruptly forced out its high-profile Chairman and CEO, Christopher Kubasik, after an internal investigation revealed conduct inconsistent with the company's code of conduct. It later emerged that multiple women at the company had raised formal s-xual harassment and behavioral concerns years before his removal. Adding fuel to the political fire, Kubasik was allowed to leave with a $80 million separation package in stock and options, sparking intense scrutiny over board fiduciary duties and executive oversight. Sam Mehta has since stepped in as the new CEO to steady the company's production goals.

Adding a layer of border security scrutiny, a hacktivist group breached the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) earlier this year. The resulting massive leak of data explicitly revealed L3Harris as a major applicant and contractor for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), putting them directly on the map for progressive lawmakers aiming to investigate corporate involvement in federal detention and immigration tech operations.

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.

I summon NoCenteam

Why are execs and VPs allowed to book flights with their own personal airline reward accounts taking priority over costs - many budget airlines in Europe are ignored for British Airways, Air France and Lufthansa - how many millions have been squandered this way.

Ok, think people, these are the people that GP is hiring as advisors:

• The Opi--d Epidemic: McKinsey paid nearly $600 million in settlements to U.S. states and local governments after investigations revealed it helped opi--d manufacturers—including Purdue Pharma—devise strategies to boost sales of painkillers.
• Conflicts of Interest: Congressional inquiries exposed that McKinsey consultants frequently worked simultaneously for pharmaceutical companies and the federal regulators tasked with overseeing them, such as the Food and Dr-g Administration (FDA).
• Controversial Global Clients: The firm has provided consulting services to authoritarian governments, tobacco companies, fossil fuel producers, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
• Intent Laundering: Critics argue that corporations and government agencies hire McKinsey to provide an objective veneer ("intent laundering") for unpopular decisions, such as mass layoffs, cost-cutting, or circumventing regulations.

Yeah, this is a great business. :/

They don't care about you, really.

Xerox saved Lexmark from being wiped out as a wholely owned subsidiary (since 2016) of Ninestar Corp (formerly Apex) trying to operate in the US against bans of forced Uyghur labor.

Forced labor producing printer parts and toner.

Now the Lexmark management run the show at Xerox and insist on their "Legacy Lexmark" differentiation.

Add "identity crisis" to the list of headwinds.

Laying off local folks while offshoring all they can - that's wrong on so many levels and deserves to have some consequences. I hope customers leave in droves.

On November 6th, I will be calling into the Quarterly Earnings Call, as a Public Citizen. If on that call I hear anything from the CEO or CFO that is misleading to the shareholders (investors, bankers, private equity firms) or an outright lie, I will be reporting to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Any they were immediately let go when he was gone when it was determined you didn’t need to pay 80 million dollars for people to run efficiency sessions. Funny their only other big clients were at PNC and BOA.

When Corrupt ML comes asking for another 80 million for efficiency initiatives, have the courage to ask if it can be done in-house

I took early retirement last year. During my time at Humana, I was always amazed by the number of lazy and preoccupied coworkers. Despite their constant smartphone scanning, long lunches and inevitable coffee runs, the work always got done.

This was especially true in the tower, where “the help” would always swoop in to tidy up the loose ends. All the world was their stage as they strolled across the check-bouncing salaries of those who kept them afloat.

Give them credit. They know how to play the game; some to the seven-figure level. It’s a different and lucrative brand of intelligence.

I just always wondered how they sleep.

https://www.reddit.com/r/IBM_Employees/s/AkLgeF3WSR

Given the staff at Wells Fargo is the software being developed biased?

Well, I must say, leaving this place has done wonders for my peace of mind already . Couldn’t be happier to have put that chapter behind me. Good riddance, I say. Was rather odd hearing my boss share personal info about team members like their mental health such unprofessional behaviour. Privacy my foot! Off I go

Imagine laying someone off, reposting essentially the same job, and encouraging them to reapply. What kind of corporate mind F is that?

Companies spend years preaching career growth, rewarding performance with raises and promotions, and encouraging employees to take on greater responsibility. Then suddenly, that same growth makes them too expensive or expendable.

What were employees supposed to do? Refuse promotions? Turn down raises? Stop developing professionally to remain affordable?

You can’t encourage people to build careers and then penalize them for succeeding.

“It’s just business” may explain why a decision was made. It doesn’t excuse how people were treated.

Pound sand, Comcast. And F U.

Wells Fargo's Code of Ethics bans employees from shorting WF stock — or buying puts, calls, or futures on it — "regardless of whether you have material inside information."

You don't need to know anything secret. Just betting against your own employer is a Code violation, and Code violations can mean termination.

Source: Wells Fargo Team Member Code of Ethics and Business Conduct (SEC filing)

Wells Fargo's Team Member Code of Ethics says your personal finances are private — but because you represent the bank, you have to manage them "properly and in a prudent manner."

What that means in practice:

• One accidental bounced check isn't a firing offense.
• But "writing worthless personal checks" is listed right alongside check kiting and fraudulent transactions as prohibited conduct. A pattern, or knowingly writing checks you can't cover, is an ethics violation — and those can end careers.
• The bank reserves the right to review team member accounts for unusual activity.
• In financial trouble? The Code points you to Employee Assistance Consulting for confidential help.

So: an honest mistake, no. A habit of writing checks on empty accounts, yes — the Code treats it as an integrity issue, not a private one.

Source: Wells Fargo Team Member Code of Ethics and Business Conduct (SEC filing)

Anyone want to get a class action going against H&C for those let go for doing their job honestly while others remain employed after 12/10 yet falsify engagement calls, upload emailed clinicals so they can adjust start date/auth for pending reviews etc?

Anyone know if Directors and upper leadership got cut? Seems as always those that should be cut were the ones making the phone calls today.

I'm a Sr Recruiter - We clearly state in every job posting tht we don't offer visa sponsorship, now or in the future. I don't care about ethnicity or origin... If someone is qualified and indicates they don't need sponsorship, I'll interview them. But in the past month alone, I've interviewed many candidates who falsely claimed they didn't need sponsorship. Some continue denying it during interviews until pressed, then admit they'll need sponsorship when their current status expires. For a small recruiting team, this wastes significant time. The mgmt has now decided to blacklist candidates caught misrepresenting their visa status and has even hinted at avoiding certain applicant groups.

At the end of the day all we are doing is denying coverage, delaying care approvals, and restricting access to doctors all in the name of major profit. What kind of world are we creating? This is my resignation letter - I'm Out.

Ethics, that is why it is crooked

Here's something I genuinely don't understnd. We had two openings for testing and QA roles that required basic test automation skills. Nothing particularly complex. Anyone with a reasonable technical background could probably learn what we needed within a month, possibly faster with today's AI tools.

I'd imagine there are 100s, if not 1000s, of unemployed American workers with these skills who would have been interested. The compensation was excellent, and the work itself was fairly interesting.

Instead, we hired two H1B workers whose technical abilities have been questionable so far. Both also struggle with communication and interpersonal skills, which matters because the positions involve some customer interaction.

What I don't understand is why we didn't properly advertise these positions and give qualified domestic candidates a fair opportunity. Was there a genuine shortage of available talent, or was there some other incentive to hire through the H1B program?

I'm genuinely curious how these hiring decisions get made because, from where I'm sitting, none of this makes sense.