I do. I had only been working at UNC General Administration for a few months, so it was probably early in 1998. The staff there mostly used Macintoshes in those days, which might have been why I required some IT assistance (thirty years at IBM hadn't prepared me to use a Mac).
The IT guy came and helped me and was about to leave when he thought to show me something. "Go here," he said, and pointed. He seemed excited, and I wondered why.
"Enter 'google.'"
That was my first act of googling.
I intentionally don't capitalize the verb, to emphasize that Google has as solidly established its common-wordhood as Kleenex and Xerox ever did.
It's google this and google that, and Google all galore.
Anyway, that glad remembrance is one of the reasons for my delight yesterday to receive a Facebook friend request from the very IT guy, with whom I had had no contact since he himself left General Administration—oh, twelve years ago?
Naturally he asked, "Are you still at GA? Tell me what you've been up to."
And I said:
The particulars of my retirement might be the first thing to tell you about. If you don't mind, I'll refer you to a feature page on my blog: "To the three white ladies, I was a colored maid." Can we go from there?And he said (obviously having read the page):
It sounds like your boss and the HR person had colluded in finding a lever to oust you. Your blog did not say how long you had been operating at a 7.5 + .5 hour day [about three years], but I suspect they needed a way to get you out that was consistent with their view of a bad-case scenario: you fought their decision. It also sounded like your boss had not talked with you prior to the meeting with HR about her concerns. [emphasis mine] Bringing in the HR person so early in this dialog suggests they feared what you could do.*I hadn't thought much about the fact that my boss of exactly two weeks had never mentioned to me personally the 0.5 hours I worked at home each day because of my three-year commuting arrangement. In fact, my friend's comment prompted me to remember that I had replied to her email notifying me of the meeting along the lines of "And what time do you and I meet to talk before [the HR person] joins us?"
To which I received no reply. I realize now that it wouldn't be open for discussion, I was going to be hit with a fait accompli.
I told my friend, "I think that, if there had remained any doubt, the point you make cements the conclusion that there had indeed been collusion. Hmm, conclusion and collusion are too good not to use in a limerick...."
I wrote it this morning:
All the facts of the case seem to argue for collusion:* As for what they might have feared I could do, I have no idea what that might have been.
The white ladies met to conspire my preclusion.
We'll hit him with an ultimatum—
And we'll mouth our words verbatim—
"Either drive to work, or be retirement your conclusion."
All I have done is tell what happened.
What you could have done, and should still do, is insist on your rights. They, on the face of it, violated "due process". There are several Federal laws that protect an employee from coercion- which they engaged in.
ReplyDeleteWhile you did resign, it was before you had planned to. "Do not go gentle into that good-night, rage rage against the dying of the light." Don't be a "nice guy"- talk to a labor law attorney. Because that's what the IT guy knew they were scared you'd do.
Tom, thanks for suggesting what the "white ladies" may have been fearing. I now know that "the IT guy" is following my blog, so perhaps he will confirm that this is what he "knew they were scared I'd do" (either by going public here and commenting or by emailing me privately).
DeletePlease tell me, Tom, what you think I might gain by talking to a labor law attorney.
In fact, to anyone reading this, what do you think I might gain, and what would you advise?
Thanks, Tom and all.
Not knowing the details of your employment contract, which is a contract under the law even if partly verbal agreement, I can't guess with much accuracy as to what recourse you should have. But my perspective, as a former union rep, is that you should at least have the recognition from administration that HR and the "white ladies" have to answer for their abuse of your good nature. Because they were counting on you reacting exactly as you did, letting them off the hook for their action.
DeleteThey voided your prior agreement, a "reasonable accommodation", without negotiation. They probably discriminated against you because of your age by forcing you out before you were willing to go. They did not engage in "due process" in their failing to discuss the issue with you before presenting a fiat accompli. Even in a "right to work" state, these are likely violations of the law. And would be considered actionable by an administrative law judge or an arbitrator.
My final point is that you aren't the only person affected by their actions: if they are willing to abuse you, an educated white male with a professional resume, what chance at fair treatment does a "lesser" person (a black female clerical, say) have. Justice for all is not an abstraction, it's what comes from standing up for your rights.
"What did that was wrong was to wait so long, what we did that was right was to start to fight." Just saying...
Addendum: “When wrongs are pressed because it is believed they will be borne, resistance becomes morality.” –Thomas Jefferson
Delete"The IT guy" confirmed privately by email: "I believe Mr. Lowe is right on target. I do not know what recourse you may have at this point, but the opinions of a lawyer skilled in labor law would be interesting."
DeleteEnjoy your retirement. Get over it. Life moves on as we should. Just saying.
ReplyDeleteSteve, believe me, I'm over it (for me personally). However, I respond to the values that Tom mentions, justice for the innocent (and for the white ladies). Besides, you know that I love to blog, and rarely do we bloggers have something as interesting and significant to blog about as employers ready and willing to abuse their employees. I'm happy.
Delete