IT Pro Screwed Out of Unused Vacation Pay, Bonus By HPE Thanks To Outdated Law (theregister.co.uk) 229
Slashdot reader Meg Whitman shares a report from The Register: A "highly skilled IT professional" has lost his fight to be paid his unused vacation days as well as a non-trivial bonus, after a judge stuck to a law he admitted was outdated. Matthew White joined Hewlett-Packard in 2013 and left in July 2015, just months before the company split into HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE). After quitting, he was stunned when the U.S. mega-corp, citing HPE's new policies, refused to hand over extra pay he felt was contractually due. Hewlett-Packard had enticed White with a sweet contract that offered a signing bonus, base salary, regular bonuses, and a benefits program. But after he quit, he was left without his unused vacation pay and a $10,000 bonus he felt he was entitled to. [...]
HPE decided that, under the law, White could only get hold of the relevant policies if he turned up, in person, to the company's official human resources headquarters -- which is on the other side of America in California, roughly 2,500 miles away. White felt this was ridiculous given that HP, sorry, HPE is not only a massive organization with HR people all over the United States, but that it was a technology company with countless employees working across the world, often at home, and that the policies are likely readily available in an internal cloud. The judge had some sympathy for that view. "This part of the statute may indeed need reworking for today's world where cloud-based digital records are replacing physical file folders located in a physical location, where employees work at home -- sometimes remotely from any head office or regional office -- and where worldwide companies like HP assign HP personnel for an entire country or region, or even outsource various HP responsibilities." Yet the judge still decided against the techie.
HPE decided that, under the law, White could only get hold of the relevant policies if he turned up, in person, to the company's official human resources headquarters -- which is on the other side of America in California, roughly 2,500 miles away. White felt this was ridiculous given that HP, sorry, HPE is not only a massive organization with HR people all over the United States, but that it was a technology company with countless employees working across the world, often at home, and that the policies are likely readily available in an internal cloud. The judge had some sympathy for that view. "This part of the statute may indeed need reworking for today's world where cloud-based digital records are replacing physical file folders located in a physical location, where employees work at home -- sometimes remotely from any head office or regional office -- and where worldwide companies like HP assign HP personnel for an entire country or region, or even outsource various HP responsibilities." Yet the judge still decided against the techie.
Law vs 'intent' (Score:5, Interesting)
The intent from HP is clear here to defraud the employee out of monies owed.
The intent of the law is to prevent that.
Judge should have stomped on HP for deliberately being asshats.
Re:Law vs 'intent' (Score:4, Informative)
Actually TFA seems to be wrong. Try reading the actual judgement (PDF): https://regmedia.co.uk/2019/06... [regmedia.co.uk]
It appears that HP complied with the law, and this guy simply didn't read his contract of employment.
His unused vacation is not paid according to his contract, which the court notes is legal in Maine. The bonus scheme was ended shortly after he joined and under the terms of it he is owned nothing. He claim's it is bait and switch, which is true but also not illegal, and again he should have read his contract.
The final bit about forcing him to travel 2,500 miles to get his file is also misleading. It probably wouldn't have had any relevance to the case as it would likely just contain the contract he didn't read and some performance reviews. And again, the law is quite clear that if he wants it for some reason he has to go to the physical HR office.
HP are, undoubtedly, dicks, but in this case it's his own fault for not even bothering to check that his contract of employment matched the offer he was made.
Re:Law vs 'intent' (Score:5, Informative)
I worked for HP prior to the split, left on my own choice. The State I live in does not require companies to pay for unused vacation so I didn't get any. HP, being a multinational corporation, has always had the policy do what the local laws require. For employees in France there was nearly a month off. For employees in Germany, they couldn't be easily fired due to worker's council rules. For employees in California they pay unused vacation because CA requires it. Where I live in Georgia, and apparently where this guy lives in Maine, our States do not mandate paying for unused vacation. I knew that going in so prior to my switching jobs I burned my remaining vacation days. He should have done the same.
Re:Law vs 'intent' (Score:4, Insightful)
the latest 'scam' in calif employment is to give 'unlimited' time off.
sounds good, right? no, its fucked up. there's a catch.
sure, on paper, there's no limit to time off, but go ahead and ask for more than 2 weeks and see how well that goes (in the US).
the dirty part? you get NO MONEY (that would translate your time off to hours of pay) when you leave the company and want to trade in your accumulated unused vacation time for pay. you USED to be able to do that but the 'smart' companies in cali have figured out yet another way to screw the employee ;(
the last 2 jobs I had (current included) are of this form.
I much prefer the standard 2 weeks that I can take with me if I leave.
oh, and the other wrinkle is that they stopped letting you accumulate more than a year at a time. I used to be able to save all my vacation pay (at my option) and take it ALL with me when I change companies. not anymore!
the war against the wage earner continues. and we are LOSING!
time for unions, guys. we don't have enough bargaining power anymore, as single employees. WE MUST BAND TOGETHER. we must. we are essentially being stripped of our power as each year goes by and more laws are written for the benefit of the company.
when will we finally demand our own rights at the table?
Re: (Score:3)
"sure, on paper, there's no limit to time off, but go ahead and ask for more than 2 weeks and see how well that goes (in the US)."
Exactly, Unless your employer is incredibly enlightened, unlimited vacation translates to "vacation at your own risk."
What happens in this era of the Second Dotcom Bubble, with people plugged into DevOps pipelines 24/7 and being monitored, is that people who aren't in the office are eclipsed by those who spend their lives at work. The new grads who have no out-of-work responsibil
Re: (Score:2)
I can corroborate. A friend of mine worked at a company with this "benefit", but when he tried to actually reasonably use it twice in three months, his job was threatened in vague yet certain language.
Re: (Score:2)
You are doing it ALL wrong!!
If you're quitting and you've got two weeks of vacation in the hole, why the hell would you tell them that you're quitting? The phrase is, "I will be on vacation for the next two weeks." Give them two weeks notice when you come back, and call in sick a lot, saying I got sick on vacation.
Re: (Score:2)
You are doing it ALL wrong!!
If you're quitting and you've got two weeks of vacation in the hole, why the hell would you tell them that you're quitting? The phrase is, "I will be on vacation for the next two weeks." Give them two weeks notice when you come back, and call in sick a lot, saying I got sick on vacation.
That's a good way to burn bridges. You can do that if you're sure you will never work for that company again or to some degree, even in the same industry to some degree. IMO it's better for your career to suck it up, stick it out, and leave on the best possible terms, even if you do get slightly screwed when it comes to vacation policy. That way they want you back and everyone will remember you well.
Re: (Score:2)
When my current employer went to "unlimited time off", we were paid for accumulated vacation time up to the transition.
I've been here long enough to be at the "three weeks a year" level. I fully intend to take about that much time now, maybe a bit more. I'm not going to be abusive of it, but I will be taking vacations. Now, I'm not going to have to be looking at my pay stub to see if I have quite enough hours, or have to cut a trip a day shorter than I'd like.
If it does become a problem (I don't expect i
Re: Law vs 'intent' (Score:2)
"Unlimited time off" is a California euphemism for "no time off".
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds odd and counterproductive, but I'd rather have limited corruption at the top of labor organizations. You don't get to the top of any organization without having a few psychopathic tendencies, stepping on toes, etc. and you don't stay there if you aren't clever and crafty; part of that is siphoning off favors for yourself.
Think about it -- professional organization leaders are going up against executives. You won't find a more corrupt group out there. I think you need corrupt leaders on both sides,
Re:Law vs 'intent' (Score:5, Insightful)
When I left my last job I found out that leaving the day after my official leave date earned me an additional month's pension contributions and another day's holiday.
So I asked my manager to change my leave date and took that day as holiday. Not all companies treat their employees as badly as HP.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah the should have fully read and understood your contract excuse.
We have Lawyers, who's full time job is reading and understanding contracts, and applying them with current law (a public contract). These are highly paid professionals. Often too expensive for any one individual daily legal needs, so us normal people try our best to comprehend contracts with the skills we have.
It is like the CEO of your company reading software code (assuming they were not a software developer) They may be smart enough to f
Re: (Score:2)
... at the discretion of the Second Party which, pursuant to Sections (g), (i) and (k)(ii), but notwithstanding Sections (m)(iv) and (m)(v), shall hitherto be ...
Unused Vacation (Score:3)
I've never worked in a state that pays you for unused vacation time, so the concept seems odd to me.
What I normally see done is "vacationing out". When you know you're about to leave, start taking large amounts of vacation time. You're probably not going to use vacation time for a while at the new job, so it makes total sense.
Depending on how you want to leave, you can even vacation out up to & including your 2 weeks notice.
If you play it right, you can get paid at your new job while at the same time b
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, you're right - if you're going to quit, time it so you use up vacation and collect any upcoming bonuses before you give notice.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've never worked in a state where I couldn't figure out how to take the vacation before I quit.
Re: (Score:2)
If you play it right, you can get paid at your new job while at the same time being paid at the old job. It's like a DIY hiring bonus.
It should be noted that this typically violates the employment contract with both your old and new employers. So make sure they're on-board with this plan before you execute it.
Re: (Score:3)
...He claim's it is bait and switch, which is true but also not illegal...HP are, undoubtedly, dicks, but in this case it's his own fault for not even bothering to check that his contract of employment matched the offer he was made.
The problem with corporate arrogance is understanding they're not going to act any different when their actions are blatantly illegal. They know they have more legal resources than you or I could ever amass, so even if you're right, you'll go broke trying. Even if this guy had a rock-solid contract and could afford a decent lawyer, you think he would financially win this battle in the end? It would literally cost him to fight for some unused vacation and a $10K bonus. He would be doing it on principle,
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
HP should have probably done the right thing
I agree with you, but this is HP after all. I remember when I got laid off last time and started looking for a new job, I ended up getting an offer from HP quicker than any of the other companies I was interviewing with. After talking to a friend that had recently quit, he said that if I get any other offers, go with them, because HP is terrible to work with, and though their starting pay may be good, you'll never see a raise. HP just doesn't have interest in treating their employees well as corporate po
Re:Law vs 'intent' (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And what is this about "a contract" - the vast majority of non-unionized, non-C-level-executives in the US do not have contracts.
Except, it seems, in Maine. Go ahead and Google "Maine employment contract" if you want.
This is the chief problem with TFA ... it was written by a UK national who is prone to sensationalism and who doesn't really understand the nuances of U.S. law, the difference between state and federal law, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
One of those nuances being that, according to Maine law, you can SEEK compensation for earned but not used vacation time, but the employer is not obligated to pay it if they say so in their contract.
Yippee, thanks, Maine!
Re: (Score:2)
Be that as it may, the judge in this case can do no more than apply the law. I'm not sure how exactly this works in the USA but it seems to be that only the Supreme Court can declare a law unconstitutional. It's not even a matter of interpreting the law at hand; it explicitly allows for employmen
Re:Law vs 'intent' (Score:5, Insightful)
Except judges don't get to just decide who they think is wrong and award based on that. They have to determine the legal position, and if the summary is 100% accurate (unlikely) he has commented that a part of the law seems outdated, it is regardless that still the law and not the judges role to just decide to ignore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You reminded me of a section of the NSW criminal code.
Dismissal of charges and conditional discharge [nsw.gov.au]
Section [5-020] Use of s 10 orders generally:
The legal and social consequences of being convicted of an offence often extend beyond any penalty imposed by a court. As Windeyer J said in Cobiac v Liddy (1969) 119 CLR 257 at 269, “a capacity in special circumstances to avoid the rigidity of inexorable law is of the very essence of justice”.
Emphasis added.
Re:Law vs 'intent' (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
FTFY. And the judge agrees.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Which would have been a waste of $400, as HP sent him his file without him having to travel. He just didn't like what his file contained.
Not hiring him again, fershure fershure (Score:2)
For that piece of tripe an AC was modded into visibility? Really, Slashdot moderators, how low can you go? I was going to retain the Subject: until I noticed it was AC.
Anyway, on this topic, the key words to search for were obvious. Rather common words actually because the point is also obvious. They have no desire to rehire this "highly skilled IT professional" ever again.
To deliberately word it rather sharply, he's outlived his usefulness to the corporate cancers. And by (literally) making a big case out
Re: (Score:3)
Should you be busy running HP? Vs trying to vilify the person who felt that they were ripped off.
The Guy worked at the company for 2 - 3 years. He left on his own will. He did the job he was asked to do, atleast well enough for the company to consider him an asset vs a liability.
Where did the story state that he didn't have a lawyer?
What ever his technical capabilities are. He got the job with the promise of such benefits, which he never received. Unfortunately there is an outdated law that stopped him.
Re:Law vs 'intent' (Score:5, Informative)
You clearly didn't read the judgement, which was linked from the article. He received all the benefits he was due.
The contract and written policies did no promise the benefits he sought. The written vacation policy specifically stated "does not include
The whole "outdated law" thing is just a red herring. The law said they could require him to physically go to their HR office (in CA) to get his personnel records. But, HP sent them anyway, without him having to travel. He complained that documents related to the vacation policy and bonus plans were missing. The judge correctly pointed out "White has made no showing that the missing items were ever in his âoepersonnel fileâ or that they should have been." He simply didn't make appropriate/complete discovery requests, and then tried to blame HP.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Law vs 'intent' (Score:4, Insightful)
You know, when you point out the facts, and show the entire summary and post title is a fraud, you really become a buzz-kill.
So basically... the Slashdot summary submitter made what amounts to extremely biased posting that was also (1) An inaccurate summary of matters; (2) Antagonizes the court, as it misrepresents what the judgement is about and falsely represents the consequence of the ruling or that the court ruled unfairly --- a fairly serious thing that has a possibility of resulting in legal reprisal, and (3) Misrepresents the outcome as HP/HPE having done something ethically wrong, as in depriving their employee of owed benefits that they didn't do ---- Again a rather serious thing to do publicly in writing, as the author of the summary may again face legal reprisal should HPE consider it worth defending themself.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would Meg Whitman post to slashdot defaming HPE?
Re: (Score:2)
(2) Antagonizes the court, as it misrepresents what the judgement is about and falsely represents the consequence of the ruling or that the court ruled unfairly --- a fairly serious thing that has a possibility of resulting in legal reprisal
Wait ... so you're saying the court or a judge would sue an individual for posting to Slashdot that the court's ruling was wrong? What Bizarro World do you live on? And please find us the legal definition of "antagonizing the court," because that's a new one to me.
Re: (Score:2)
judge would sue an individual for posting to Slashdot that the court's ruling was wrong?
People can post all day stating that they disagree with a ruling, or you think they ruled badly, due to 1st amendment protections.
However, the second someone misrepresents a ruling --- As in protesting by spreading a falsehood/clearly inferring a falsehood about what the ruling was about, or the legal consequence of the ruling, or other "retaliation", then that was and unprotected speech, and the court that wa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Judges do not have the power to sanction anyone outside of a case/courtroom for "improper behavior". It's not illegal to lie.
Judges do have the power, can sanction, and have sanctioned people on behavior
outside of the courtroom. Ultimately, some people have been exonerated, but it was because the publication was legitimate criticism and comment.
It's not illegal to lie; However, lying is not protected speech, and lying is not "legitimate criticism" and comment,
so it doesn't enjoy the same protect
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You know, [blah blah] facts [blah blah] the entire summary and post title is [blah blah blah]
Never read the summary. Never. That's a slashvertisement.
The title is clickbait, don't read that.
Re:Law vs 'intent' (Score:5, Informative)
Read the judgement (it is linked in the article). He wasn't ripped off at all, and the 'outdated law' had zero effect.
HPs vacation policy says 'use it or lose it'. The judge found he accepted those terms by accepting the employment offer and continuing to work there even if they changed the terms of the vacation policy.
The bonus thing is complete nonsense. The guy apparently does not understand the difference between calendar years and fiscal years. The bonus plan was for 'second half', which meant May 1 through October 31. He was paid his bonus under that plan. There was no bonus plan beginning in November, but the guy is trying to claim 'second half' includes October through December, and he should be paid based on that. Nope.
The 'outdated law' is immaterial because, in spite of the fact that the law says you have to show up in person, HP DID send him his personnel file. He then complained that the 'personnel file' they sent him did not include bonus plan information, HP sales policies, etc. The judge found that personnel files do not contain such information, so there was no problem with what HP sent him.
Re: (Score:2)
The judge found that personnel files do not contain such information, so there was no problem with what HP sent him.
To be pedantic, the judge found that he did not provide evidence that they were ever in the personnel files. Which is a little different than they aren't there.
It's still possible that HP took them out of the file and then sent everything else, but litigating that would require evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
What's ironic is that if the employee had actually been in California, instead of on the other side of the country, what HP did would have been illegal, because accrued paid time off is considered compensation here. But the law on this varies from state to state, and presumably his state does not have simil
Re: (Score:2)
The crux of the problem is that the courts are fond of letting the larger entity "alter the deal" much as Darth Vader did. HP claims that they indeed altered the deal and he would have known that if only he had checked with the planning office where the notice was on display (in a disused lavatory in the basement...etc.).
For some reason the same courts that freely allow that sort of nonsense are not similarly indulgent if an individual claims that the last check they sent in contained a note that plainly st
Re: (Score:2)
Horseshit. Unlike you, courts require actual evidence. Where does this 'HP claims they altered the deal...' come from? The actual court documents state exactly the opposite.
White argues that summary judgment should be denied to HP on his claim for accrued vacation benefits because the record does not contain the actual policy that was in effect in 2014 and 2015. Pl.’s Opp’n at 28 (ECF No. 57). The record does contain the 2013 version, see White Aff. attachment (ECF No. 55-2) (referred to as Ex. A in Aff. 38, but attached as pp. 11-33 of the ECF document); see also Karr Aff. Ex. 1 at 15-27 (ECF No. 83-2), and the 2016 version, White
Dep. Ex. 15 (ECF No. 45-8). HP’s 30(b)(6) designee testified that there had been no change in this vacation forfeiture provision, Powell Dep. Tr. at 26-27, 149-52, 158 (ECF No. 45-11) (a public, redacted version is available at ECF No. 46-20), and there is no evidence to the contrary.
Re: (Score:3)
Because HP knew that the guy would have came out at a loss if he hired a lawyer to represent him. There's no way he could have hired a lawyer for a week or two's pay.
This is precisely why megacorps nickel and dime people for trivial amounts. They can afford the lawyers, while the the people they fuck over can't.
Re: (Score:2)
To the contrary, I've found that mega-corps tend to overpay people when possible in order to avoid the nuisance of dealing with them. I've been through layoffs where I've been paid much more than I thought I deserved. When people have asked nicely, I've seen them be offered even more.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly... When I got laid off from Cisco, the basic severance package was pretty generous.
It also came with a stack of statistics of the layoff about an inch thick showing that they were locked and loaded to vigorously defend any accusations of age discrimination, and an offer of a separate super-duper severance package if you promised not to make them use it.
All total, it amounted to about three months salary. I took the money and ran.
Re: Law vs 'intent' (Score:2)
I bet he knows that you need to bathe and change your clothes every day.
Re: (Score:2)
I stomp... I stomp them flat... I stomp them flat. Stomp stomp stomp.
If your stomper is flat, maybe you should inflate the bumpers next time. You don't want to hurt yourself.
NEVER leave with "unused vacation days..." (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm sure all the stock holders will be very pleased with your use of THE LAW to deny payment to your former employee! He's not going to be doing work for the company anymore anyway, so SCREW HIM, amiright?
Let this be a lesson to all: NEVER leave a company with unused vacation days on the books. It is far safer to USE UP ALL VACATION DAYS and then announce you're leaving the company than to rely on the company actually being honorable and paying out.
Consider that high tech companies often provide stock options or grants as part of their compensation package. Those stock grants vest slowly over time as the employee continues work at the company. When you someday quit, unvested stock grants are forfeited.
If you use up all your vacation days, you are still considered an employee for the duration of your vacation, which may in fact cause more stock grants to vest before you finally submit your resignation!
If you resign and take cash for unused vacation days, you may get paid the same amount of cash for said vacation days. However, you are immediately considered a non-employee. Any stock grants that would have become vested had you actually used up your vacation days become forfeit, which could be a significant chuck of money you lose.
Same deal with other benefits provided by the company. How about those most recent health insurance charges that might end up being entirely on YOUR dime instead of the covered by the company's insurance plan?
Once you submit a resignation, a company has far less compelling reason to bother with appeasing you compared to when you are an employee with presumed future labor contributions to the company. Many companies take full advantage of any and all excuses to refuse payment to you that they can legally get away with. They have far more lawyers, tax accountants, and lobbying efforts figuring out these tricks to use against you than you'll ever have, SO BEWARE!
What do the policies even matter? (Score:1)
If it's in the contract, changed policies—even if HPE refuses to actually tell its policies—don't give them a right to refuse following the contract they inherited.
Something is clearly missing here.
Re: (Score:1)
If it's in the contract, changed policies—even if HPE refuses to actually tell its policies—don't give them a right to refuse following the contract they inherited.
Something is clearly missing here.
What was missing was the plaintiff having a copy of the policies.
Plaintiff: HP failed to follow their own policies!
Court: OK. Show us the rules they broke.
Plaintiff: I can't. I don't have a copy. (unsaid: Because I don't know how legal discovery works)
Court: You haven't made a case. Summary judgement for defendant.
This is a non-story. Even if he had a legitimate claim, he didn't bring the necessary documentation to support his claim. So he lost his case, and he lost it fast.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Got to admit, I can't understand why if he was set to make $10,000 he didn't just fly to California to get the money. He could then have sued HP for the costs of having to fly to California, even if he'd lost he'd still be up $10,000 minus the cost of an internal flight.
If you have a dispute over money, it's almost always easier to come out on top if you have the money in your pocket. This is true in many areas of life; if for example you've agreed to sign up for a service or something and don't have to pay
Hello this is HR (Score:5, Informative)
No no sorry we were outsourced, we are in Bangalore now. Please show up between 0900 and 1600 to get your cash!
Quick summary - looks like he deserved to lose (Score:5, Informative)
HPE was playing legal games, White decided he didn't want to play, so he lost. Here's a quick summary:
1. White apparently did not have a copy of his own employment contract and conditions.
2. During discovery, White asked HPE for copies. Seeing as he was suing them, they went by the letter of the law: They only have to provide discovery documents if he personally showed up at HQ. He didn't show up, so he didn't get the documents. Sure, it's a stupid law, but...it is the law.
3. After discovery, the case went to trial. White could only say "I think this is what I'm owed, but I have zero proof".
4. He lost, for obvious reasons.
He could have kept a copy of his contract. He could have hired a lawyer to play the legal games for him. He could have gone to California - it's not like that's hard. Seems to me that the guy deserved to lose the court case.
Re:Quick summary - looks like he deserved to lose (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You could pay a local lawyer like $150 to show up in your place at HPE HQ. cheaper than a lawsuit or going there.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you read the summary judgement? Your point #2 is wrong. The law says he is entitled to his personnel file (but you have to show up in person to request it). However, that didn't matter, because HP DID sent him his personnel file anyway. Then he tried to claim that his 'personnel file' was missing things like HPs Global Sales Policy. The law defines a personnel file as things such as employee evaluations, not global sales policies.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously? Never had a real job, have you? Every place I've worked for started with a folder full of papers. Everything from employment contracts to code of conduct pamphlets, to "you agree you took the sexual harrassment class" agreements.
New Headline: Technie Needed Competent Counsel (Score:5, Informative)
This is a pretty sensationalist headline and a non-story. I actually read the article, and the condensed version of the story is the plaintiff, the "techie" in the headline, did not ask for copies of relevant documents while the case was pending in court through the discovery process, and instead complained to the court--after it was too late to get the documents through the discovery process--about not being given copies of the documents before litigation commenced. It seems as if the guy was representing himself and did not hire a lawyer. If that's the case, he got all the representation he paid for.
Re: (Score:2)
"He who represents himself has a fool for a client"
-Abraham Lincoln (attributed)
Re: (Score:2)
He who has a lawyer represent him in court can win the case but still end up broke.
- Mel, the cook from Alice. Or maybe I said it.
Facts? (Score:2)
The summary and the article are very poorly written.
Re: (Score:2)
Good for not communicating information in the 20 seconds before a reader loses interest.
Happened to me (Score:2)
I work earning $50,000 doing IT in San Jose. Plus I get a Christmas Bonus.
Cry me a river (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There was no need to use part of his 10 grand to do that. HP sent him his personnel file. He just didn't like what it contained (he seems to think that a 'personnel file' should include things like global sales policies, bonus policies, etc.) The law, and the judge, and any sane person, do not agree.
Stupid Law, but... (Score:2)
The law may be outdated, but couldn't the guy spend a few hundred dollars on a round-trip flight and get his thousands of dollars? It doesn't seem like he understands money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even with the flight he would not have gotten a cent. Looks like he is just a whiner that didn't get his way as he didn't read the contract he signed.
Seems to me he DID get his way, just that he had no idea which way he was headed until a judge told him which way was up.
Glad I quit that awful company (Score:2, Troll)
20+ years (EDS -> HP -> HPE), and I found a better paying job with a good corporate culture. Meg was forcing employees to commute into work, though some of us were effective for 10+ years telecommuting and had our teams spread around the US. In light of my working out of my home, I didn't complain much about the lack of raises and bonuses in that last 10 years, but when HP/HPE laid off something like 80,000, along with Meg's antics (the Post-it note incident comes to mind), I got out of there. Some of
Yawn (Score:2)
People get screwed by companies and policy changes every day. Yes, this judge is following the strict rule of law, but one would hope there would be some discretion when it's clear that this is BS.
I personally got screwed out of over 500 hours of sick leave when my old company decided to do away with it and put us into a PTO (vs. vacation + sick leave) style program....so whenever I got sick after that I had to use my own damned time off. That was great for the company because they got to write off millio
Re: (Score:2)
The guy signed a contract that explicitly stated he would not get paid out for unused vacation time. He sued for unused vacation time and lost. Does that meet your standard for getting screwed?
Re: (Score:2)
Having only read the summary, it sure doesn't appear very clear on that point.
Re: (Score:2)
We are well into the era of fake news by now, yet you....
Re: (Score:2)
Oh jeez get over it. People comment on the summaries here constantly w/o reading the articles. I'll cut you slack because you're clearly new here.
Re: (Score:2)
People comment on the summaries here constantly w/o reading the articles.
Yes, but many arent full of shit when they do it, like you do.
There is a difference between knowing stuff and pretending to know stuff. The later is why you are a lying fuck.
The pretending is dishonesty... this isnt a performance stage, and nobody is giving you cookies when your pretending isnt revealed. Its lying fucks like you that give me an opportunity to post on stories where I am mostly ignorant... because you gave me something I am no longer ignorant about... how much of a lying pretending disgu
Re: (Score:2)
Who pissed in your cornflakes? Nothing I said was incorrect, and yet you feel compelled to troll on. Grow the fuck up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No dude, for real, because you read a summary doesn't mean you should presume what you read was true. Knowing what is going on in the world is more work than that.
Re: (Score:2)
I already admitted it. As for "knowing what is going on in the world", do you get your news from /.? Do you read every article before commenting? If you had assumed that the summary was correct, is there anything wrong with my comment...no. So WTF?
It's called discovery... (Score:2)
I don't know who your lawyer was sir, but he or she failed you.
You should have requested these documents from the company though the pre-trial discovery process and fought for them hard. Your lawyer dropped the ball on this. But hey, for 1/3rd of maybe $20K, what did you expect?
The judge had no choice, signaled for change (Score:2)
A judge's job is to apply the law, as written by the legislature and passed by the executive, no matter how stupid or outdated it is, until it is amended or removed by the same process. That the judge stated that it was outdated is a signal to the legislature that they should change the law, not some bad thing he said.
Why the game of saying "HP" when it's "HPE"? (Score:2)
What's with the continual use of HP and not HPE, use of the HP logo (not the HPE logo), and even making a joke about the name difference (followed by repeat use of HP). They are very different beasts in very different businesses. Part of that is reflected in the employee count: at the split 3 years ago, HPE had around 240k employees, while HP had around 49k.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like... (Score:2)
Seems like they told him what he needed to do, he decided to do something different, and lost - the law, out-dated as it may be, was on HP's side.
So, rather than buy a plane ticket to CA ($300-500 round-trip) he rolled the dice, hires a lawyer and lost.
He should have played the game and gone to CA, his decision to do otherwise cost him well over $10K (list signing bonus and unused vacation days).
Was the company petty? Yes.
Did they tell him how to collect what he was owed? yes.
Did he do what they said? No.
Di
Why didn't he fly to CA and get the policies. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm no legal expert, but I suspect that judge was fully within his authority to interpret the law so that HP's can't require someone to go to California to get a document they can produce at any time.
Read the fucking story, you shameless dumbass, then SHUT THE FUCK UP with claims of bias.
The "techie" represented himself in a lawsuit and he fucked up. He didn't even have a copy of his employment contract.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The 9th Circuit called. They want to know if you have a newsletter they can subscribe to.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but language to the effect that "official HP policies shall be distributed per defined company procedures" means that you have to go digging through all that paperwork to find out what they are. So when you are sitting across from a potential client with a contract to sign, go ahead and request filing cabinets full of Corporate Regulations And Policies to be delivered to to. Plus the time needed to review them.
Re: (Score:2)
The judge reasoned that, while the law may need some adjustment, it had absolutely no bearing on the case because HP sent him the personnel file even though techinically it was not required to.