I've said it once and I'll say it again (even though I'm not a big fan of bungie's sketchy business practices and gameplay decisions). ALL GAME STUDIOS NEED TO FOLLOW BETHESDAS EXAMPLE AND UNIONIZE.
Pete is a piece of shit.
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
Our Goals
I've said it once and I'll say it again (even though I'm not a big fan of bungie's sketchy business practices and gameplay decisions). ALL GAME STUDIOS NEED TO FOLLOW BETHESDAS EXAMPLE AND UNIONIZE.
Pete is a piece of shit.
Just yesterday, it was alleged that Bungie’s CEO Pete Parsons had purchased 24 cars cumulatively valued at $2.5m just before the layoffs. Parson’s Twitter account went private yesterday, too.
Pete Parsons thanks all the plebs who lost their job. If the plebs didn't lose their jobs, Pete Parsons would not be able to buy 24 cars.
Destiny 2 is where I stopped giving a shit about anything Bungie does....
They lost me after Halo Reach.
That employee needs to get over her simping mentality and sue for the gender discrimination Bungie is blatantly guilty of. I don't give a shit if they happened to be doing a mass layoff at the same time; you don't get rid of somebody right before their already-scheduled maternity leave!
I'm not sure you have a case if the percentage of women on maternity leave in the fired group is roughly the same as in the non-fired group.
If it isn't illegal to fire people taking maternity leave specifically, which I don't think it is in the US, you're out of luck. The only illegal thing is firing people because of maternity leave. Since there was a mass layoff, it can easily be argued that the maternity leave was not the reason.
The US needs better labor laws, and thus unions. An individual can't do anything against it.
There are two possibilities. Either:
The decision to lay the person off was made before the maternity leave was scheduled, in which case I'd argue she has a case for detrimental reliance, or
The decision to lay the person off was made after the maternity leave was scheduled, in which case a prima facie assumption is fair to make that the taking of leave obviously colored the supervisor's evaluation and contributed to the layoff, and the burden is on the employer to prove otherwise.
Seriously? It happened to someone I used to work with (last November). Except they laid her off while she was on maternity leave.
My wife was at home for 3 months before the birth of our child and 2 years afterward. I always considered that not enough.
I can't imagine living in a country where you could be laid off before or even worse during your maternity leave.