Borders employee sues company

[booksatborders]

Borders employee sues company.

Details here:  http://news.yahoo.com/ex-employee-sues-borders-over-mass-layoffs-233100427.html

We'll see if anything comes of this.

Comments

Re: Not 100% accurate

[anonymous]

I think the point was that many in AA and DM's got something in the end. Many got three months /12 weeks including Jared. The majority in the field got nothing but a slap in the face. They weren't being judgmental simply truthful in a rotten situation.

Progress is also made by letting people express their opinions whether you agree or not. That is true progress. That is America. Progress is not made in the courts. There is a fine final between law and common sense. Jared may or may not have both on his side.

Legally speaking, a law may our may not have been broken. It is for the court to decide. Who knows Jared may win his case. No said anything about pardoning Borders. No love lost on that.

How much do you want to bet the Borders' defense is "he did get severance pay" which of course would have nothing to do with the basis of the case. But when did Borders ever try to tackle an issue head on?

Your comments are very common man & very blue color which are things that Borders forgot about years ago.

Are you corporate and will you join Jared's lawsuit?

Re: Not 100% accurate

[anonymous]

Did you mean "blue collar"? Anyway, your poor education aside, the point is NOT that many in AA got severances. We're talking about laws being broken, not simply spilled milk, and speaking of milk, why shouldn't Jared stick it to the man and try to squeeze whatever he can from Borders? I feel badly that we in the field got nothing (save for measly retention bonuses), but we saw that coming too. I'm not part of the lawsuit, but I applaud the 300 standing with Jared for their bravery, even though the odds of them each getting 60 days back pay is low. Even if Jared doesn't win, it'll be a huge moral victory and the court of public opinion will be appeased.

Oh, and you're going to tell me progress wasn't made in this country in the court system with cases like "Roe Vs Wade" or "Brown Vs. Board of Education"? Please. Grow up.

Re: Not 100% accurate

[anonymous]

I like that you mock that dude's education and then say this:

"Even if Jared doesn't win, it'll be a huge moral victory and the court of public opinion will be appeased."

What in the world does that mean? Are you just spouting cliche for fun?
Lets take a second and break this down.
"Even if Jared doesn't win [the lawsuit], [the lawsuit] will be a huge moral victory..."
I don't think you understand what a moral victory is. Being down 8-0 in a baseball game only come back and tie, but lose in extra innings can be considered a moral victory. Losing a court case and getting nothing is not a moral victory. It is a loss. Fairly simple. I'm no lawyer, but from what little was written here, it seems as if the court will find the law was broken (WIN!) or not (loss.)
Or the second part:
"Even if Jared doesn't win...the court of public opinion will be appeased."
Gibberish again. What public opinion? The hundreds of people still reading this board? And how does a loss appease them? Seriously, my brain hurts.
And what bravery are you applauding? These people have been fired. they have nothing to lose. How are they brave for suing a company that soon wont exist?

My favorite part of your comment had to be "and speaking of milk." Hilarious and completely nonsensical.
Leave the trolling to the King Troll. At least he makes me laugh.

Re: Not 100% accurate

[anonymous]

First of all, using some silly sports analogy you read somewhere IS cliched, and plus you're analogy sucks and doesn't even apply to what you're talking about, so your credibility is gone 100%. Lawsuits aren't simply games to be won and lost; there are additional complexities and nothing is black and white.

Secondly, even if Jared wasn't going to win, which he is, it would be a moral victory because someone would have stood up and made headlines on an issue of injustice, and people would remember that. The employees of any company that violates labor laws should be protected by the government, and Jared is a good upstanding citizen who's blowing the whistle on them. And I would read up on W.A.R.N. and its parameters if I were you, otherwise you increase your chances that the next post you make will sound even more stupid.

Thirdly, "court of public opinion" is a legal term, not a cliche. I think you need to go back and take English and/or Law 101. Either that or get a life.

Re: Not 100% accurate

[anonymous]

Ah, you make me laugh. Mock my education and use the wrong 'your/you're' in YOUR first sentence.

Let me try to explain the court of public opinion to you, because you don't seem to get it. You have to have a public. A quick google search for Jared's name reveals some personal stuff, and one article about this lawsuit. A news search reveals more sources on the lawsuit, but they are mostly in blog form, and they are either copies of the Reuters article or quote only the Reuters article. You can have a small scale public opinion battle (think local government,) but if no one cares and no one reports it, you lose that battle.

As for the moral victory, you seem to think that you can lose everything and still claim it. Something has to be won. And I concede that frequently moral victories are claimed solely on pride. A loss in this case, however, doesn't result in pride. It doesn't give anyone a stepping stone to win something in the future. It just costs the losers money. That is it.

But lets get down to the case. I read up on the WARN act and its parameters as you suggested. I'm no legal expert, but it seems to me that Borders might be eligible for two out of the three exemptions to WARN. The first exemption may not apply, but "unforeseeable business circumstances" and its description sound exactly like what might happen if your #1 bidder in a bankruptcy auction pulls out 2 days before the deadline.

But this has been fun, we should do it again sometime.