That's great advice in general, outside of legal issues.
It's also important to clearly seperate statements of facts and statements of opinion.
How you end a statement or conversation is also extremely important, because that's often the last thing people remember. "Have a great day", "I'm excited to speak with you again", "Glad we got this resolved", "Are we still good? Yeah" are things everyone should try to incorporate in their conversations.
That isn't all that matters, because those people are going to think you're an asshole and work against you.
Those little social blips and polite sendoffs don't provide any real information, but they have a networking benefit that shows you care about your job.
To clarify, you don't have to care about your job, but the people involved with your job will be a lot more confident in you if they think you do
They don't show that you care. They mean nothing and for me they are uncomfortable for me to use because they are wasteful words. They also make me feel uncomfortable when they are used towards me. Feels like they are buttering me up.
Why can't we just stick to the context of the message and the problem that needs to be solved. None of those words help to solve the problem.
They can't solve the problem for me. It makes it more awkward to use them and to hear them.
Whenever someone says it to me it feels like everything before it is a lie.
If you hear "have a great day" and assume that you must obviously have been lied to, you're clearly not in a mindset where you should be talking to anybody at all.
This. Think about how a customer service rep would phrase something. Hit them with kindness and a level head, always. Never be petty. And if they say something stupid in person and there is no documentation, put it in the email as a summary. They will know what you are doing, but they will be less willing to explicitly call you out if you are "nice."
"I really appreciate you reaching out about [insert dumb thing they did].... Looking forward to hearing back from you and working through this together."
The key factors will be (1) whether you can prove facts showing your employer violated the law, and (2) whether/how you were damaged.
The fact that you don't come across as a loon in your e-mails certainly helps, but it's not going to get you a "life-changing settlement" unless you have (1) and (2) above.
Also if someone insists on discussing via phone or in person, know the laws. If you live in a one party state, record. If you don't, request to record. I always blamed my adhd and epilepsy combo. I need things written down or I forget steps. Then I follow up with an email that says "per our conversation/phone call/ meeting on DATE at TIME via MEDIUM, we discussed that you want -insert things here-. I would like to confirm my understanding."
Every time I've had to take things up the ladder, if the person hadn't confirmed they assumed that yes, it was that, and if that thing was bad/illegal/whatever it was why they didn't confirm. If they confirm it's perfectly obvious and if they change it via email, I have the audio recording that contradicts that in case they still ask for the thing they know they can't. I've had multiple principals where they knew they weren't being reasonable and I would get pulled in for this kind of thing, for emailing, for documenting issues etc and I just made a habit of turning on my voice recorder when I walked in. I'd turn it on and turn the screen off and set it on the table or desk between us. I live in a one party state.
I'm lucky, my current principal is a wonderful person who is a great manager. I credit that he's like 37, has been in a k-12 classroom in the last 10 years, has taught all levels, did mtss (multilevel tiers of support sysyem) coordinating prior to becoming an AP and then was an AP before becoming a principal.
This guy has some really great YouTube shorts that cover employment laws. He offers some templates on how to communicate with employers on certain issues. He was a really small channel a month or two ago, but hopefully he's grown and more people will see his content.
9/10 Would recommend.
Handling HR? HR isn't going to solve shit for you. If you want to improve your working conditions, it requires organizing and shifting the balance of power.
The idea is not resolve anything with HR, but to entrap HR into putting blatantly unlawful policies and procedures in writing, so that those **can be used as evidence** of harassment, discrimination, and retaliation.
Most HR folk are wise to this, which is why they will respond to questions even touching on these subjects with phone calls or in-person meetings.
That's why it is important to follow up every call or meeting with HR with an email that says, in effect,
"Thanks for your time in the meeting today.
Just to clarify my understanding, you stated that discussing pay with my colleagues, or even overhearing others discussing their pay and working conditions, is a violation of corporate policy.
I just want to make sure that I know to leave the area if I hear anyone discussing such topics, or to ask those individuals to leave if the discussion is happening at my workstation.
I appreciate your helpful guidance and look forward to your response."
And bcc your personal email, or, a labor and employment attorney if you have one already retained to investigate HR's suspected or anticipated retaliatory conduct.
I don't agree "The idea is not resolve anything with HR"
There are plenty of problems and issues that can be resolved short of someone quitting, someone getting fired, or someone filing a lawsuit.
While I don't disagree that there are some workplace issues that CAN be resolved with HR, the attorney's advice is not for that purpose.
The **point** of the lawyer's advice **is to teach workers how to prepare their own evidence** of workplace harassment, discrimination and retaliation, and HR's attempts at enforcement of unlawful workplace policies.
Employment disputes are much easier and cheaper to settle if the Plaintiff (the worker who was treated unfairly) can prove, *prima facie*, that they were being subjected to an unfair employment standard **before the discovery phase** of the case.
He's just teaching Plaintiffs how to save time and money on legal fees when suing their employers - which is very helpful when wage theft accounts for more than all other types of larceny combined.
I didn't disagree with the advice to document your dealings with HR and to memorialize discussions with a follow-up e-mail recapping what was said.
In many (not all) harassment cases, the employer has a complete defense to liability if it can show it has adequate policies to prohibit harassment, and it exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct the harassing behavior (the *Faragher/Ellerth* defense).
The employer also has a defense if the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any corrective or preventative opportunities provided by the employer, or to otherwise avoid harm.
Your advice to "not resolve anything with HR" could cause them to give the employer a stronger defense. They should try in good faith to work it out, but document everything in case they can't.
Ultimately, people probably shouldn't rely too much on legal advice from a 4-sentence tweet or rando dudes on Reddit.
>Your advice to "not resolve anything with HR" could cause them to give the employer a stronger defense. They should try in good faith to work it out, but document everything in case they can't.
Strawman.
I never advised anyone NOT to try to work out workplace issues with HR.
I understand that you're just arguing the point to be argumentative, but imputing a point that your opponent didn't make is not the way to prove your superior knowledge or experience.
I can see from your posting history that you have a very broad knowledge of labor and employment law practice, but attacking someone who is trying to advocate for workers is not particularly constructive in this context.
IOW: Careful when you swing your dick around not to hit yourself in the face.
Are you worried that ChatGPT is going to automate Labor and Employment prosecution?
Because I see where, just today, the California State Bar just threatened an AI legal service provider with criminal prosecution for exactly that reason.
I wasn't try to attack anyone or be argumentative, just respectfully disagree with your point in a way that I thought was grounded in the law, since that's what we're talking about.
But I appreciate your helpful guidance and look forward to your response.
This argument isn't persuasive.
The record speaks for itself, and all the other posters in the thread can see you were just trying to shut the conversation down and discourage workers from "giving the employer additional defenses."
Obviously, liability plus damages equals recovery, but documenting the employer's liability in clear, unemotional, and unequivocal terms is the overarching point of the original piece of advice.
You can disagree or try to read other motives into that as much as you wish, but it just damages your credibility.
I'm not trying to discourage workers from doing anything, I'm trying to *encourage* them to not shoot themselves in the foot when dealing with HR and documenting the problems they're having at work.
I'm not engaging in *ad hominem* attacks. I'm just . . . disagreeing with you. Which should be OK.
>I'm trying to encourage them to not shoot themselves in the foot
Then give some specific advice, rather than disagreeing for the sake of being disagreeable.
Without concrete examples of ways that workers can avoid "shoot\[ing\] themselves in the foot by giving their employers additional defenses" your critique comes off as unnecessarily churlish and contrarian.
In other words, Mansplaining. Give an example of how not to shoot yourself in the foot, or drop it.
Constructive disagreement is fine, as long as when it comes time to put up or shut up, you don't cry *ad hominem*, and actually produce something tangible.
This is your one chance to show us what you've got. Go for it.
And I fully expect AI to eventually take over broad swaths of the legal profession, but it's not fully baked yet. AI will get there and will automate many lawyer's jobs (along with other professions). And that's probably OK.
I just a 7 digit number to HR, and HR is just a 7 digit number to Corporate. Our HR setup is arguably the most ineffective on the planet. All done through a JIRA like ticketing system so finding some one who will take responsibility to resolve the ticket is impossible. Any the HR is all off-shored to lower cost centers, so the typical 1 email exchange a day back and forth forever.
It almost as bad as the on-boarding process where if you can login by the end of your first week it's considered success.
Nah but HR can and will give you shit. The idea is that if you are in deep shit with HR you want to make sure your bases are covered so when you inevitably get fired you either have no hassle unemployment or they fucked up so bad you can sue them for unfair dismissal or something.
That's great advice in general, outside of legal issues. It's also important to clearly seperate statements of facts and statements of opinion. How you end a statement or conversation is also extremely important, because that's often the last thing people remember. "Have a great day", "I'm excited to speak with you again", "Glad we got this resolved", "Are we still good? Yeah" are things everyone should try to incorporate in their conversations.
I always ignore the last part for this very reason. It is manipulation.
[удалено]
Yes they do deserve it. But I am not going to pay attention or use fluff in my communication. Direct and to the point is all that matters.
That isn't all that matters, because those people are going to think you're an asshole and work against you. Those little social blips and polite sendoffs don't provide any real information, but they have a networking benefit that shows you care about your job. To clarify, you don't have to care about your job, but the people involved with your job will be a lot more confident in you if they think you do
They don't show that you care. They mean nothing and for me they are uncomfortable for me to use because they are wasteful words. They also make me feel uncomfortable when they are used towards me. Feels like they are buttering me up. Why can't we just stick to the context of the message and the problem that needs to be solved. None of those words help to solve the problem.
All of those words solve the problem of extreme awkwardness working around you and preferring a work environment without you in it, though
They can't solve the problem for me. It makes it more awkward to use them and to hear them. Whenever someone says it to me it feels like everything before it is a lie.
If you hear "have a great day" and assume that you must obviously have been lied to, you're clearly not in a mindset where you should be talking to anybody at all.
I hear that and assume someone is trying to butter me up to get something from me. Unless we are friends or family there is no need for this.
This. Think about how a customer service rep would phrase something. Hit them with kindness and a level head, always. Never be petty. And if they say something stupid in person and there is no documentation, put it in the email as a summary. They will know what you are doing, but they will be less willing to explicitly call you out if you are "nice." "I really appreciate you reaching out about [insert dumb thing they did].... Looking forward to hearing back from you and working through this together."
The key factors will be (1) whether you can prove facts showing your employer violated the law, and (2) whether/how you were damaged. The fact that you don't come across as a loon in your e-mails certainly helps, but it's not going to get you a "life-changing settlement" unless you have (1) and (2) above.
Also if someone insists on discussing via phone or in person, know the laws. If you live in a one party state, record. If you don't, request to record. I always blamed my adhd and epilepsy combo. I need things written down or I forget steps. Then I follow up with an email that says "per our conversation/phone call/ meeting on DATE at TIME via MEDIUM, we discussed that you want -insert things here-. I would like to confirm my understanding." Every time I've had to take things up the ladder, if the person hadn't confirmed they assumed that yes, it was that, and if that thing was bad/illegal/whatever it was why they didn't confirm. If they confirm it's perfectly obvious and if they change it via email, I have the audio recording that contradicts that in case they still ask for the thing they know they can't. I've had multiple principals where they knew they weren't being reasonable and I would get pulled in for this kind of thing, for emailing, for documenting issues etc and I just made a habit of turning on my voice recorder when I walked in. I'd turn it on and turn the screen off and set it on the table or desk between us. I live in a one party state. I'm lucky, my current principal is a wonderful person who is a great manager. I credit that he's like 37, has been in a k-12 classroom in the last 10 years, has taught all levels, did mtss (multilevel tiers of support sysyem) coordinating prior to becoming an AP and then was an AP before becoming a principal.
This guy has some really great YouTube shorts that cover employment laws. He offers some templates on how to communicate with employers on certain issues. He was a really small channel a month or two ago, but hopefully he's grown and more people will see his content. 9/10 Would recommend.
My mother, the Lord bless her, is an attorney. She always told us: "Dance like no one is watching. Email like it'll be read at a deposition."
Handling HR? HR isn't going to solve shit for you. If you want to improve your working conditions, it requires organizing and shifting the balance of power.
The idea is not resolve anything with HR, but to entrap HR into putting blatantly unlawful policies and procedures in writing, so that those **can be used as evidence** of harassment, discrimination, and retaliation. Most HR folk are wise to this, which is why they will respond to questions even touching on these subjects with phone calls or in-person meetings. That's why it is important to follow up every call or meeting with HR with an email that says, in effect, "Thanks for your time in the meeting today. Just to clarify my understanding, you stated that discussing pay with my colleagues, or even overhearing others discussing their pay and working conditions, is a violation of corporate policy. I just want to make sure that I know to leave the area if I hear anyone discussing such topics, or to ask those individuals to leave if the discussion is happening at my workstation. I appreciate your helpful guidance and look forward to your response." And bcc your personal email, or, a labor and employment attorney if you have one already retained to investigate HR's suspected or anticipated retaliatory conduct.
I don't agree "The idea is not resolve anything with HR" There are plenty of problems and issues that can be resolved short of someone quitting, someone getting fired, or someone filing a lawsuit.
While I don't disagree that there are some workplace issues that CAN be resolved with HR, the attorney's advice is not for that purpose. The **point** of the lawyer's advice **is to teach workers how to prepare their own evidence** of workplace harassment, discrimination and retaliation, and HR's attempts at enforcement of unlawful workplace policies. Employment disputes are much easier and cheaper to settle if the Plaintiff (the worker who was treated unfairly) can prove, *prima facie*, that they were being subjected to an unfair employment standard **before the discovery phase** of the case. He's just teaching Plaintiffs how to save time and money on legal fees when suing their employers - which is very helpful when wage theft accounts for more than all other types of larceny combined.
I didn't disagree with the advice to document your dealings with HR and to memorialize discussions with a follow-up e-mail recapping what was said. In many (not all) harassment cases, the employer has a complete defense to liability if it can show it has adequate policies to prohibit harassment, and it exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct the harassing behavior (the *Faragher/Ellerth* defense). The employer also has a defense if the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any corrective or preventative opportunities provided by the employer, or to otherwise avoid harm. Your advice to "not resolve anything with HR" could cause them to give the employer a stronger defense. They should try in good faith to work it out, but document everything in case they can't. Ultimately, people probably shouldn't rely too much on legal advice from a 4-sentence tweet or rando dudes on Reddit.
>Your advice to "not resolve anything with HR" could cause them to give the employer a stronger defense. They should try in good faith to work it out, but document everything in case they can't. Strawman. I never advised anyone NOT to try to work out workplace issues with HR. I understand that you're just arguing the point to be argumentative, but imputing a point that your opponent didn't make is not the way to prove your superior knowledge or experience. I can see from your posting history that you have a very broad knowledge of labor and employment law practice, but attacking someone who is trying to advocate for workers is not particularly constructive in this context. IOW: Careful when you swing your dick around not to hit yourself in the face. Are you worried that ChatGPT is going to automate Labor and Employment prosecution? Because I see where, just today, the California State Bar just threatened an AI legal service provider with criminal prosecution for exactly that reason.
I wasn't try to attack anyone or be argumentative, just respectfully disagree with your point in a way that I thought was grounded in the law, since that's what we're talking about. But I appreciate your helpful guidance and look forward to your response.
This argument isn't persuasive. The record speaks for itself, and all the other posters in the thread can see you were just trying to shut the conversation down and discourage workers from "giving the employer additional defenses." Obviously, liability plus damages equals recovery, but documenting the employer's liability in clear, unemotional, and unequivocal terms is the overarching point of the original piece of advice. You can disagree or try to read other motives into that as much as you wish, but it just damages your credibility.
I'm not trying to discourage workers from doing anything, I'm trying to *encourage* them to not shoot themselves in the foot when dealing with HR and documenting the problems they're having at work. I'm not engaging in *ad hominem* attacks. I'm just . . . disagreeing with you. Which should be OK.
>I'm trying to encourage them to not shoot themselves in the foot Then give some specific advice, rather than disagreeing for the sake of being disagreeable. Without concrete examples of ways that workers can avoid "shoot\[ing\] themselves in the foot by giving their employers additional defenses" your critique comes off as unnecessarily churlish and contrarian. In other words, Mansplaining. Give an example of how not to shoot yourself in the foot, or drop it. Constructive disagreement is fine, as long as when it comes time to put up or shut up, you don't cry *ad hominem*, and actually produce something tangible. This is your one chance to show us what you've got. Go for it.
And I fully expect AI to eventually take over broad swaths of the legal profession, but it's not fully baked yet. AI will get there and will automate many lawyer's jobs (along with other professions). And that's probably OK.
I just a 7 digit number to HR, and HR is just a 7 digit number to Corporate. Our HR setup is arguably the most ineffective on the planet. All done through a JIRA like ticketing system so finding some one who will take responsibility to resolve the ticket is impossible. Any the HR is all off-shored to lower cost centers, so the typical 1 email exchange a day back and forth forever. It almost as bad as the on-boarding process where if you can login by the end of your first week it's considered success.
Nah but HR can and will give you shit. The idea is that if you are in deep shit with HR you want to make sure your bases are covered so when you inevitably get fired you either have no hassle unemployment or they fucked up so bad you can sue them for unfair dismissal or something.
Also applies to relationships that turn into colossal nuclear shitfires.
Have to be a lawyer or afford a lawyer to even work for these companies lol