Thomas Dalton writes:
Perhaps this is a wrong-side-of-the-pond issue. In the UK if an
employer calls it redundancy when actually they just want to replace you they would get sued for wrongful dismissal in an instant.
In the U.S.A., employers operate under similar though not identical constraints. This is true even when the employers are charities are public-interest organizations.
It's not really an issue about commitment to transparency. Anyone who wants the Foundation and similar organizations to fully disclose all personnel matters needs to lobby Congress to create immunity from lawsuits for such organizations that do so. Until then, such organizations -- and, in my experience, government agencies as well, except for political appointees -- are obligated by the legal framework we work in to refrain from disclosing every detail about even the most friendly and business-like departures.
--Mike
2009/11/1 Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com:
Thomas Dalton writes:
Perhaps this is a wrong-side-of-the-pond issue. In the UK if an
employer calls it redundancy when actually they just want to replace you they would get sued for wrongful dismissal in an instant.
In the U.S.A., employers operate under similar though not identical constraints. This is true even when the employers are charities are public-interest organizations.
Regarding calling it one thing when it is actually another, you may well be right, however as I understand it there isn't any need in the US (or at least in some states) to try and pretend it's a redundancy because you don't need a reason to dismiss someone. In the UK you can only fire someone if you have evidence of wrongdoing and have followed all the appropriate procedures (verbal warnings, written warnings, etc.).
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org