LMG forbids their workers from discussing wages, not just with outsiders but even amongst each other. Clarification needed.

[Zodiark1593]

On 2/18/2023 at 9:45 PM, SansVarnic said:

 

 

Seems to me there is no case to be made against LMG on this subject. Also, this is not the first time LMG has been accused of this, and the practice is very common to protect the employer and employee. People need to stop watching the very misinformed and so-called tiktok pay (non)experts.

 

 

This is funny to read tbh.

That is from an employee that was obviously at the bottom of the totem with no understanding of how companies work. Jealous and entitled probably. I have delt with employees like this from my previous job. Fired a few like them as well, had no clue, even accused me of making more than I did but that was ok, I showed them the door and told them they had a choice, grow up and educate themselves or leave. No need to have people jumping to a conclusion with nothing to back it up.

I certainly lean towards the approach of innocence, until some reasonably decisive evidence emerges that proves otherwise. Not only is it (borderline paranoia) disruptive for the workplace, but it's also quite unhealthy to always believe that there is some malicious component at play. I've already enough mental problem without taking that toxicity home.

 

That said, I have left a company very shortly after some pretty egregious negligence came to light. I suppose that's the difference. If I've legitimate reason to suspect malfeasance on part of the company, I won't be stewing over it, I'll just leave. No need to take part in the potential fallout, when the focus should be on myself at the end of the day.

[Stahlmann]

On 2/20/2023 at 9:00 PM, Omni-Owl said:

Citation needed here. Almost all research done on this subject does not support your argument. It's the opposite.

If anything the "toxic enviornment" you speak of is going to be the fire lit under the management and c-suite that was being opaque to begin with. The workers have no reason to go after each other, once they have a common enemy in management and c-suite for not paying them fairly to begin with. Otherwise why hide and forbid talking about pay? If you believe in fair pay, then you must believe in the transparency it requires to keep employers accountable.

Envy in general is an unreasonable emotion. Still, it exists. And if you know someone else gets more money, even if they work harder, you're probably still are a little envious. Toxic workplaces have existed for much smaller reasons.

 

I'm simply of the opinion that you as a person should know what your work is worth. If you're feeling your inadequately compensated and can actually back that up with facts, you will probably also be able to get a raise. If your boss still won't pay you more even after confronted with facts like sales numbers etc. then it's not worth it to argue with him/her. Find a new job with a boss that cares about employees.

 

People need to realize you have to stand up for yourself to get what you want. You can't wait until someone else does it for you. You might wait for a long time. And that also applies to jobs in countries where worker unions are standardized. The union responsible for my job negotiates an average salary raise of 5% each year. That's nothing when also accounting for inflation and all around increasing prices for everything. But prove your worth to a company, then renegotiate with your boss and you will probably be able to get a significantly better deal than anyone just sitting on their butts waiting for a raise.

 

On 2/20/2023 at 9:00 PM, Omni-Owl said:

This whole paragraph comes off as "Proximity Bias". You don't fundamentally trust your employees to get the work done, because you can't see them work. That's bad. That's real bad and again research points to something that doesn't support your argument. The people who cannot work from home because of what you list is not the majority of workers. If people are happy and cared for in a workplace, they will want to work, even when you aren't looking. Actually especially when you aren't looking over their shoulder, checking their every move. This is simply not good argumentation in opposition to Working from Home as a policy.

Every person i know who works from home says that they're less productive when at home. There are more distractions, simple as that. And if your boss is checking your every move, then something else is seriously wrong in your work environment. Either you're just doing bad work or there are trust issues in general. I go to my office every day, and still i'm mostly unsupervised. Unless there is a meeting or i seriously fucked up, my boss just leaves me alone, because he knows i'll still do good work regardless. Any boss i've had so far had enough to do as it is. They mostly don't even have the time and are just not interested in constantly supervising what you do.

 

I constantly see people posting about how they're watching Netflix or hanging out on discord while working from home. Do you really think that doesn't have an impact on productivity? It's just so easy to get distracted when you're sitting at the same PC where you also play games and/or watch media. And most people do not have the discipline to ignore all that when on the clock.

 

Again, people need to stand up for themself in their work environment. And if you're not happy with how you're treated, an ANONYMOUS Reddit or Twitter post AFTER your termination won't help anything. The only thing it does is to start a dumb shitstorm that holds up for a day or two and then is forgotten like all the other ones before. And if WFH is so important, make that clear from the beginning. Heck, even make that a hard requirement if you want to. But don't just expect every employer to go with that just because you think it's the standard.

[Omni-Owl]

6 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

Envy in general is an unreasonable emotion. Still, it exists. And if you know someone else gets more money, even if they work harder, you're probably still are a little envious. Toxic workplaces have existed for much smaller reasons.

 

I'm simply of the opinion that you as a person should know what your work is worth. If you're feeling your inadequately compensated and can actually back that up with facts, you will probably also be able to get a raise. If your boss still won't pay you more even after confronted with facts like sales numbers etc. then it's not worth it to argue with him/her. Find a new job with a boss that cares about employees.

 

People need to realize you have to stand up for yourself to get what you want. You can't wait until someone else does it for you. You might wait for a long time. And that also applies to jobs in countries where worker unions are standardized. The union responsible for my job negotiates an average salary raise of 5% each year. That's nothing when also accounting for inflation and all around increasing prices for everything. But prove your worth to a company, then renegotiate with your boss and you will probably be able to get a significantly better deal than anyone just sitting on their butts waiting for a raise.

 

Every person i know who works from home says that they're less productive when at home. There are more distractions, simple as that. And if your boss is checking your every move, then something else is seriously wrong in your work environment. Either you're just doing bad work or there are trust issues in general. I go to my office every day, and still i'm mostly unsupervised. Unless there is a meeting or i seriously fucked up, my boss just leaves me alone, because he knows i'll still do good work regardless. Any boss i've had so far had enough to do as it is. They mostly don't even have the time and are just not interested in constantly supervising what you do.

 

I constantly see people posting about how they're watching Netflix or hanging out on discord while working from home. Do you really think that doesn't have an impact on productivity? It's just so easy to get distracted when you're sitting at the same PC where you also play games and/or watch media. And most people do not have the discipline to ignore all that when on the clock.

 

Again, people need to stand up for themself in their work environment. And if you're not happy with how you're treated, an ANONYMOUS Reddit or Twitter post AFTER your termination won't help anything. The only thing it does is to start a dumb shitstorm that holds up for a day or two and then is forgotten like all the other ones before. And if WFH is so important, make that clear from the beginning. Heck, even make that a hard requirement if you want to. But don't just expect every employer to go with that just because you think it's the standard.

Sure stand up for yourself, how do you do that when you need facts? You get facts right? Oh wait, it's all opaque. How do I get the facts? I can't.

 

Like it's quite a contradiction to be against transparency for pay at the workplace and then talk big about how "you just need to get facts so you can justify higher pay to your boss". How you gonna get those facts when it's all opaque and inaccessible???

 

Still a lot of anecdotes in this post in regards to working from home.

 

 

[Omni-Owl]

5 hours ago, TechlessBro said:

Wow this smells like a pile of #$&* from a mile away.

Clause 34 looks like a cut down privacy notice and nothing else.

 

If you think the clause is anti worker, you are assuming they have custom contracts for everyone.  Most likely it’s generic to cover HR and payroll as well as managers.

 

Not sure on Canadian law as not a lawyer but that is considered private and confidential in many countries. Making sure staff don’t talk about other people wages is important. 

Also of great shock to everyone on the internet some people can’t keep their mouths shut and like sticking their foot in their mouth.

So that clause protects the company from stupid.

 

PS I have no interaction with LMG or staff other than watching their videos on YT.

Letting people talk to each other internally about their pay is sufficient. The clause clearly state this is not allowed at all. That's anti worker, full stop.

 

It's lawful in the area LMG is in, but what is lawful is not always ethical. Most often it isn't ethical, actually.

 

No one here is asking that these workers can talk about it all outside lmg. But disallowing internally is anti worker. No question.

[ToboRobot]

Reading threads like this, makes me not want to work for LMG.

Not because LMG isn't a good workplace or work environment, but because the rabid fanbase doesn't understand boundaries, and I would feel like working there even in an off camera role would subject me to an invasion of privacy from weirdos on the internet.

 

[Needfuldoer]

19 minutes ago, ToboRobot said:

Reading threads like this, makes me not want to work for LMG.

Not because LMG isn't a good workplace or work environment, but because the rabid fanbase doesn't understand boundaries, and I would feel like working there even in an off camera role would subject me to an invasion of privacy from weirdos on the internet.

Parasocial relationships are a hell of a drug.

[Stahlmann]

32 minutes ago, Omni-Owl said:

Sure stand up for yourself, how do you do that when you need facts? You get facts right? Oh wait, it's all opaque. How do I get the facts? I can't.

 

Like it's quite a contradiction to be against transparency for pay at the workplace and then talk big about how "you just need to get facts so you can justify higher pay to your boss". How you gonna get those facts when it's all opaque and inaccessible???

Inaccessible is not true. It's just accessible in a different way. For example LTT knows exactly how much money was made with each video and who exactly took part in it. You don't just have to use numbers. You can use everything that came as a result of your work and use that. Even though you might not know the exact values in your writer position, you can still take credit for your work. They can look up the numbers behind it and see you're right or wrong.

 

And this discussion can still go two ways even if you know exactly how much your coworkers are paid. You still need to be able to back up why you should be paid the same or more than them. In that case they will still check if you're working as efficiently as the others who might be paid more before agreeing you're worth that much. Just knowing someone's salary when they're in a similar position to your job still doesn't mean your work is worth the same.

 

Again, that's why you have to show your worth. If you're simply invisible (meaning you're not standing out in a positive or negative way) your boss will very likely not agree to a raise. If you can prove you're more productive than others and your boss agrees to a raise you might also just have created a problem for the other employees you've just pointed out. This is an example where you just created a toxic workplace where employees backstab each other so one individual can get a raise.

 

Cry about that all you want. Go for equality all you want. In reality people are not equal. Not before the law and not anywhere else. There are plenty of examples every day. Everyone being an individual fundamentally means people are not equal.

 

I agree that employees should be legally allowed to talk about their salary. But i also think it's a good that people generally shy away from it. I can cause as much harm as it can cause good. Ultimately people should decide themself if they want to talk about it. And this is how it's actually done in most places. It's not legally forbidden, just frowned upon.

 

At the end of the day you agreed to a specific salary for a specific job description when you entered an employment contract. If you want a raise you need to bring up a reason why your employer should pay you more.

Again: You agreed to the terms.

[Ripred]

1) If you feel your not being paid adequately for your job/or you don't like the policy of said company why did you accept those terms in the first place?

 

2) If you have such distrust with your company that you need to compare salary why are you still working there?move on, stop crying.

 

3) be grateful you have a choice and the ability to complain, many don't even have those rights

 

Sry I have no patience for people who picket for these kinds of topics, especially if you're from a country privileged enough to raise these kinds of complaints means your in a position to make a choice to better your outcome instead of shouting at the clouds for the world to work your way 

 

Okay I'm done, can we get back to tech now?

 

 

[jeo]

2 hours ago, Ripred said:

1) If you feel your not being paid adequately for your job/or you don't like the policy of said company why did you accept those terms in the first place?

This is why pay transparency is important, how are you supposed to know if you are being compensated fairly when you are unable to discuss it?

Most entry level employees have every little negotiating power since they are relativity replaceable, so they are unlikely to be able to amended the policies they don't like. But I would go one step further, have one questionable policy does make it a hellscape to work in. This does not mean that the company shouldn't aim to do better.

 

2 hours ago, Ripred said:

2) If you have such distrust with your company that you need to compare salary why are you still working there?move on, stop crying.

Often unfair pay discrepancies come from inertia and not malicious intent. Outside experienced hires typically get paid more then people who are promoted from within. Transparency prevents pay differences from compounding becoming major issues. Trust, but verify.

 

2 hours ago, Ripred said:

3) be grateful you have a choice and the ability to complain, many don't even have those rights

This seems very nihilist, just because others are worse off you shouldn't strive to make things better?

 

2 hours ago, Ripred said:

Okay I'm done, can we get back to tech now?

I believe this is the "Off Topic" section, perhaps you got lost?

[Omni-Owl]

2 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

Inaccessible is not true. It's just accessible in a different way. For example LTT knows exactly how much money was made with each video and who exactly took part in it. You don't just have to use numbers. You can use everything that came as a result of your work and use that. Even though you might not know the exact values in your writer position, you can still take credit for your work. They can look up the numbers behind it and see you're right or wrong.

 

And this discussion can still go two ways even if you know exactly how much your coworkers are paid. You still need to be able to back up why you should be paid the same or more than them. In that case they will still check if you're working as efficiently as the others who might be paid more before agreeing you're worth that much. Just knowing someone's salary when they're in a similar position to your job still doesn't mean your work is worth the same.

 

Again, that's why you have to show your worth. If you're simply invisible (meaning you're not standing out in a positive or negative way) your boss will very likely not agree to a raise. If you can prove you're more productive than others and your boss agrees to a raise you might also just have created a problem for the other employees you've just pointed out. This is an example where you just created a toxic workplace where employees backstab each other so one individual can get a raise.

 

Cry about that all you want. Go for equality all you want. In reality people are not equal. Not before the law and not anywhere else. There are plenty of examples every day. Everyone being an individual fundamentally means people are not equal.

 

I agree that employees should be legally allowed to talk about their salary. But i also think it's a good that people generally shy away from it. I can cause as much harm as it can cause good. Ultimately people should decide themself if they want to talk about it. And this is how it's actually done in most places. It's not legally forbidden, just frowned upon.

 

At the end of the day you agreed to a specific salary for a specific job description when you entered an employment contract. If you want a raise you need to bring up a reason why your employer should pay you more.

Again: You agreed to the terms.

To this; Read @jeo's most recent answer:

[leadeater]

On 2/22/2023 at 6:17 AM, Omni-Owl said:

People who tend to say "I'm just being honest" are also people who tend to have poor social skills. It's a tactic often employed to make sure you are free of responsibility when you say anything because you can just write it down as "Well, they just can't take honesty". That's deflection, that's not taking responsibility for your own words and it's quite frankly insulting.

If you truly believe that writing to someone like they are a child because they disagree with your assesment or opinion or find that perhaps you didn't convey what you wanted to say as clearly as you thought you did or they believe you missed the point, then that's pretty bad?

If you find it insulting that is completely on you. I told you to read it again because you clearly, to me, did not. It's simple as that. If you still find it insulting then I can't help it. There is no good way to tell you you have not comprehended something and to try again. You were always going to react like you did as far as I see it.

 

 

Quote

Take the time to read it slowly and fully, understand what is being said and why.

 

What I said

 

On 2/22/2023 at 6:17 AM, Omni-Owl said:

Read it over again slowly

What you said.

 

How you said it is not any better, in my opinion worse. But anyway I still think you just wanted to be insulted.

 

I see no problem with what I originally wrote and no problem telling you to read it again. I did see a problem with your inability to read through that post and figure out that work places are complicated and that "two people doing the same work" expressed in simplistic terms like you were trying to is unrealistic and does not reflect the reality of actual workplaces.

 

Be insulted, I don't actually care. I'm not going to mind either way and I'm also not going to put effort in to giving detailed responses to you if you aren't going to read them and actually consider what is being said, now that is actually rude and insulting to me and my time and the effort I choose to give to you.

 

What you take from what another person has said is on you, if you want to find it insulting you will. I cannot fix your mindset.

 

Employees doing the exact same work with zero deviation is not common in many job sectors, unless you're in a factory line at a fixed speed doing a specific task along with X number of other people doing the same exact thing then this idea of people doing the same work breaks down. It especially does not apply here to this LMG accusation. Job roles and titles along with job descriptions are used for this purpose, employees with the same ones are doing the same job/work but that does not mean they do the same exacting things. They should be getting paid similarly and fairly, not necessarily the exact same. Which comes to the reason I replied to you in the first place, your argument relating to your comments about the $15/hr and the $17.50/hr fast food worker. Seniority is a valid reason for differences in pay so long as that is clear and understood which is the purpose of pay scales. In many jobs the longer you have been employed the more value you have brought to the business and you are also more able to bring value, one of the key points I was telling you. It may be harder to apply this to "flipping burgers" and it may even be not appropriate for that particular job but that does not exclude it as valid in all the other situations where it is.

[Omni-Owl]

33 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I see no problem with what I originally wrote and no problem telling you to read it again. I did see a problem with your inability to read through that post and figure out that work places are complicated and that "two people doing the same work" expressed in simplistic terms like you were trying to is unrealistic and does not reflect the reality of actual workplaces.

 

Be insulted, I don't actually care. I'm not going to mind either way and I'm also not going to put effort in to giving detailed responses to you if you aren't going to read them and actually consider what is being said, now that is actually rude and insulting to me and my time and the effort I choose to give to you.

 

What you take from what another person has said is on you, if you want to find it insulting you will. I cannot fix your mindset.

Do you not realise this whole bit is saying "I take zero responsibility for what I write."?

 

You are also assuming I can't read nor comprehend. Did it ever occur to you:
A) That I can disagree with you without it being an inability to read?
B) That I can certainly find what you write not getting the point across if that is what it is without it being an inability to read?

C) That when someone says you missed the point of what was said, and you continue to insist you didn't miss the point, that maybe, just maybe, there is a misunderstanding and instead of doubling down on being condescending and deflecting, you could take a step back and try to reach an understanding?

 

I'm not incapable of reading. Nor am I incapable of comprehending English (despite it not being my first language).

What I am not really happy about is when someone insists to try and "win" a discussion by turning it into an argument, and then insist that the other part of the conversation is just incapable of reading because they disagree with you. That's a display of poor social skills.

[Omni-Owl]

2 minutes ago, TechlessBro said:

Wages is used as a wider term here, not specifically one persons pay.

Please prove that.

3 minutes ago, TechlessBro said:

Remember that LMG isn’t a big company this maybe a template contract the paid for and customised only some sections.

I don't know what you consider a big company, so it's hard to really gauge what this means. They say they employ like 100 people so I'd say that's pretty big. It's nothing compared to Facebook or Google, but at that point we are talking mega conglomerates which I feel is a pointless comparison.

4 minutes ago, TechlessBro said:

If you think it’s anti-worker go pay a real lawyer to review it since the internet won’t likely persuade you.

This whole it’s anti-worker isn’t to helpful to anyone. Especially unions and employees suffer from non-legal posts and stories from the internet

Not sure what you are trying to say here. What I get is that you are making the distinction between what is legal and what is ethical. The argument in this post from the start goes that this is unethical, not that it is unlawful. Far as I can tell, from how people responded in this thread, LMG is not breaking any law in the BC area where they are based. However, it wasn't about legality. It never was.

5 minutes ago, TechlessBro said:

You seem to have very strong opinions on it which makes this whole topic pretty pointless.

 

What do you need as proof… Linus and lie detector test streamed live?

I don't know what you are talking about here. I said that I wanted an explanation for why it's in there. I'm not sure how you think a lie detector is gonna help with that.

I do believe forbidding workers from talking about their wages with each other is extremely anti-worker, yes. That provably only benefits their boss, not themselves. And I am not alone. Look in this thread, for one.

6 minutes ago, TechlessBro said:

Also have you read your current work contract fully and had a lawyer check it… you may find it’s far worse than anything here. At the end of it all that person read and signed in agreement to it so whatever you or the internet thinks they chose their own path.

Yes I have read it *and* I have had my union look it over because they have lawyers that offer that service. I was made aware of eventual pitfalls, I told the boss about this and we negotiated changes to the contract that I could justify because I had a union with a lawyer would could look it over.

When you are from a country that has an over-abundance of unions and you see what good they tend to do? It becomes very hard to change the stance that unions are bad and that being ethically favourable towards workers is bad.

[Omni-Owl]

Just now, TechlessBro said:

Well that easy go ask the union lawyers to read that and explain it, why post here?

I don't live in Canada. Besides, what is a lawyer supposed to explain?

They didn't decide to include it in the handbook. Someone from LMG greenlit that.

[jeo]

13 minutes ago, TechlessBro said:

Remember that LMG isn’t a big company this maybe a template contract the paid for and customised only some sections.

I think you are absolutely correct, I would bet +90% of the language is boiler plate.

 

7 minutes ago, Omni-Owl said:

I don't know what you consider a big company, so it's hard to really gauge what this means. They say they employ like 100 people so I'd say that's pretty big. It's nothing compared to Facebook or Google, but at that point we are talking mega conglomerates which I feel is a pointless comparison.

LMG is at an interesting size, large enough for management to not know all of the employees but too small to justify in in house counsel house. I believe they would fall into the category known as mid-market.

 

21 minutes ago, TechlessBro said:

If the person who posted that actually worked for LMG and had a problem they wouldn’t post it to the internet they would have got a lawyer.

I don't think the target of this discussion is the employees. I suspect LMG compensates their staff at or above industry level, and treats them fairly. Instead I would hope LMG management would take the initiative to go above and below, help to set an example of how a company should act.

I recognize this is much easier said then done, as I can imagine multiple possible issues that would make them hesitate to change their internal policy.

 

But to me it is very similar to the right to repair, ultimately it is good for everyone.

 

 

[crazzp]

8 hours ago, Omni-Owl said:

Sure stand up for yourself, how do you do that when you need facts? You get facts right? Oh wait, it's all opaque. How do I get the facts? I can't.

So the facts you need are the salary of other people? You know that's not justification for a pay raise right? Just because you're paid less than your similar level colleagues doesn't mean you ought to be paid the same right? Because you're never doing the same work.

 

You agreed to the terms and were happily working until one day you found your colleagues' pay. That's not fair pay that's jealousy. If you found out that you're overly paid amongst your peers, would you go to your boss and demand a pay decrease? I guess not.

[Omni-Owl]

1 minute ago, TechlessBro said:

Ask them how the interpret the language of it.

 

You seem to have assumed the worst intent behind it from a reddit thread.

Let's see how this accusation stacks up against what I wrote literally at the start:

On 2/19/2023 at 12:32 AM, Omni-Owl said:

I WANT TO MAKE THIS VERY CLEAR: THIS IS NOT A CALL TO ACTION OR TO GET OUT THE PITCHFORKS AND TORCHES. I WANT CLARIFICATION AND UNDERSTANDING. THIS IS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO VILLIFY LINUS SEBASTIAN OR LMG AS A WHOLE. I ASSUME THERE WAS INTENTION BEHIND THIS THAT ISN'T MALICIOUS, EVEN IF THE PRACTICE IS GENERALLY FROWNED UPON.

I did not in fact assume the worst. Not even. I literally stated that I didn't think it was malicious. At least read before answering

3 minutes ago, TechlessBro said:

McDonald’s has warnings that hot coffee is hot, that should give you an idea of the level of guidance some people need.

You might be alluding to the infamous case of an old lady who sued McDondald's because she burned herself on their coffee.

That one case was distorted so badly, that it made frivilous lawsuits in America seem rampant, when in fact, McDonald's had received *many* reports before that case about their coffee being way too hot for consumption.

If you wanna learn more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_jaU5V9FUg

 

[Omni-Owl]

4 minutes ago, crazzp said:

So the facts you need are the salary of other people? You know that's not justification for a pay raise right? Just because you're paid less than your similar level colleagues doesn't mean you ought to be paid the same right? Because you're never doing the same work.

 

You agreed to the terms and were happily working until one day you found your colleagues' pay. That's not fair pay that's jealousy. If you found out that you're overly paid amongst your peers, would you go to your boss and demand a pay decrease? I guess not.

What I'm reading you say is "You were ignorant, until you learned you had not been paid as much as you peers, and then you get mad?"

That's called being exploited. Jealousy has little to do with that.

 

And if I found out my colleagues were not paid as much as me while we work for the same? I'd support them in getting the fair pay, just like me. Why would I not want that?

[jeo]

5 minutes ago, Omni-Owl said:

You might be alluding to the infamous case of an old lady who sued McDondald's because she burned herself on their coffee.

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants

 

Edited February 22, 2023 by jeo
An earlier post said the same thing

[Ripred]

9 minutes ago, Omni-Owl said:

You might be alluding to the infamous case of an old lady who sued McDondald's because she burned herself on their coffee.

That one case was distorted so badly, that it made frivilous lawsuits in America seem rampant, when in fact, McDonald's had received *many* reports before that case about their coffee being way too hot for consumption.

They also don't sell supersize anymore due to someone suing because they got to fat, bet there getting paid fairly

[Omni-Owl]

1 minute ago, TechlessBro said:

@Omni-Owl just by posting the topic you made a call to action. If you wanted an answer from LMG you email or message them.

Asking for clarification is not a call to action from the community. It's transparent communication to show that something might be amiss here and for LMG to address it.

Corporate culture does not respond to your particular method of approach.

[Omni-Owl]

3 minutes ago, Ripred said:

They also don't sell supersize anymore due to someone suing because they got to fat, bet there getting paid fairly

More than welcome to source that. Quick Googling does not tell me what case you are talking about.

[Ripred]

12 minutes ago, Omni-Owl said:

More than welcome to source that. Quick Googling does not tell me what case you are talking about.

Seriously you never heard about that ? lol, To be fair there have been multiple cases which McDonalds came out with some statements a couple years afterwards that they were doing it for financial reasons but since you've never heard here are some and the movie that addressed some of the case

 

https://money.cnn.com/2003/01/22/news/companies/mcdonalds/#:~:text=NEW YORK (CNN) - A,way into a U.S. courtroom.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Size_Me

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-mcdonalds-will-never-pay-for-making-customers-fat-at-least-in-the-us/

 

Edit: examples of People like this in the world are one of the core reasons I show little sympathy for this threads topic, I understand there are some cases of unfairness within corporations and should be highlighted when discovered but the mass majority are people like this looking to get free pay for doing nothing and I will no longer condone such

[Omni-Owl]

6 minutes ago, Ripred said:

Edit: examples of People like this in the world are one of the core reasons I show little sympathy for this threads topic, I understand there are some cases of unfairness within corporations and should be highlighted when discovered but the mass majority are people like this looking to get free pay for doing nothing and I will no longer condone such

I will check out those links, however I don't understand the connection between what you say and what the topic of the thread is.

Frivilous lawsuits that only aim to get someone rich have nothing to do with wage transparency at work. Like none. So maybe you are talking about something else entirely, but that's what this thread is about. I wanted clarification as to why that is in their handbook, if it is in their handbook. There is nothing about lawsuits or trying to win money on this. At all.

[crazzp]

57 minutes ago, Omni-Owl said:

What I'm reading you say is "You were ignorant, until you learned you had not been paid as much as you peers, and then you get mad?"

That's called being exploited. Jealousy has little to do with that.

Just because your pay is lesser than your colleagues means you're being exploited? That's oversimplifying things.