So many people have been laid off in the past two-three months, why are we now suddenly in the process of hiring? Why weren't those jobs offered to those who received their walking papers?
15 replies (most recent on top)
Its genuinely embarrassing for them how they've shown "support" to their employees during this whole thing. Our store cut hours, and pay. Now however they are hiring temps at 12$ an hour starting pay, while team leads are still at 11$.
Too replace who they do not want to come back. They will just change the job title to make it legal, it is the Follett way.
This sounds like it was written by MS.
I'm a big shot lawyer and I'll crush you! You haven't got a chance!
HA! HA!
In labor law the big money is in protecting the employer. They pay retainers. They pay hourly for results. Employees want legal work done on contingency. The lawyer takes 40% of the settlement. The lawyer risks their time and resources. They won't do that unless there is hard proof.
Can one reasonably expect there is an expert in class action law suits monitoring follett? They can't even get into discovery without presenting evidence of wrong doing. Do you or does anyone have the email, the document, even the meeting agenda where ending long tenured careers was discussed and adopted?
When a group of people were wronged due to a violation of the law, a class action suit is brought. The law firm suing becomes a trustee in settling the suit. The law firm makes big $ on this. They're rare. Think back to Apple and class action suits due to how they priced music and books. Consumers received a credit against future purchases. The law firm received $. That's how our system works.
There is no lawyer who will touch this without hard proof, class action or not.
follett has been doing this since 2012. Many long tenured people were drummed out of their jobs through ruthless tactics. There is no class action to date. Why might that be?
Who’s hiring? I’ve been told I can’t bring on anyone to replace those who turned down coming back yet.
There's a big difference between and individual vs. a class action.
Think Walmart got hammered a number of years back for a systemic issue.
It has been the follete SOP for more than 6 years now. However, without proof, no lawyer will touch it (without charging you a significant retainer). There is no contingency when the lawyer thinks they'll spend a lot of time and the outcome is in doubt.
I tried it. I couldn't even get follett to pay me a severance after 20+ years in service the company. 3 different lawyers said the company was terrible, but being terrible doesn't win lawsuits. The company was so terrible they put one of their lawyers on the case to fight everything, They paid more for legal services than the severance would have cost. follett is awful.
I'm not a lawyer but I think if you could establish a systemic policy of basis to eliminating a certain class of employee you would not need to have a written policy per se. You know, the old boy's club, with a wink and a nod. Rewarding management that follows this path without putting it in writing. Interesting the mention of relocating. Don't think a lot of people got that option.
So, I'm thinking a preponderance of damning circumstantial evidence (civil suit) vs. beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal suit). Given the reality of how much money Follett would spend to defend their questionable practices (and the bad pub. - they're a family owned business!) vs. settling out of court, sealed records and all. You might be surprised. Another black eye for Follett.
It was the plan from the beginning. “Project Reset”. I told you so.
Firing older employees who are not willing to relocate is age discrimination. However, there are no documents ordering management to pare older employees. There is no official policy dictating eliminating employees with x-years and being paid $/year. There is nothing in writing targeting older employees.
You need that type of evidence for a lawyer to look at the problem.
Also, current employees and former employees who have received a severance are not likely to talk with a lawyer. They're frightened.
There is nothing to a class action suit. There is no merit behind the idea that you can prove their targeting older employees. This is a defacto association that the company will spend big $ to fight.
EEOC complaint.
If you could get enough people for a class action lawsuit you could bring Follett to their knees.
MS might even decide it would be a good time for him to retire.
Follett is practicing age discrimination by hiring young people rather than rehiring older employees that were RIF. If you were replaced by a young person you should file a discrimination complaint with your state labor board. Notify your network of RIF coworkers To file a complaint.
This is Follett under Clay and Row. Why are there two presidents.
They can hire new people at a lower pay rate?
Rehiring people they RIF'ed would be to admit they made a mistake?
REALLY bad management?
This makes no sense to me.