, and that the standards you were applying to that particular
person were not discriminatory on one of the specifically-impermissible bases.

Many of the things that people perceive as "legal requirements" aren't
actually legal requirements, they are things that are common practices
designed to _demonstrate_ that the actual legal requirements are being met.

~~~
michaelochurch
What you say is technically true, but those procedures also exist because it's
better, from the company's perspective, to have such demonstration in place
than to have to prove, in court, that it did nothing wrong. Companies don't
want HR data of any kind (even if it will prove the firm's case) seeing fresh
air.

For one example that can be played (by employee) to a win, the most common
case of a good person being fired seems to be one in which he's seeking
transfer to another team, and the manager decides to punish the "disloyal"
report, often with negative reviews and "performance improvement plans" that
block transfer outright. In that particular case, it's arguably retaliation
(over a legitimate use of internal mobility procedures) and harassment
(negative communication interfering with job performance) for the manager to
be doing so.

Technically, if a manager interferes with a report's ability to transfer, that
_is_ harassment, and bad performance reviews qualify in companies that use
Enron-style reviews (i.e. reviews that are part of the transfer packet).
That's why Google has secret calibration scores: it's a CYA move. Managers can
give positive verbal feedback and annotate it with a smear that the employee
never sees. This makes it less likely that a report's lack of mobility will
result in a lawsuit.

That's why if you _ever_ see a PIP, you should _never_ sign it, and in fact
leave the room immediately. "I have to go to the bathroom". Then you start
your internal mobility search immediately. If you do it properly (this
includes that you were never there to see the PIP) then the pursuit of
transfer happened _before_ the PIP, which hints at a retaliatory context.

This move doesn't work under a probationary period because anyone who seeks
transfer when on probation is (reasonable man standard) deemed unwilling to
follow workplace policies-- or, more informally but to the
, and that the standards you were applying to that particular 
 person were not discriminatory on one of the specifically - impermissible base. 

 Many of the thing that people perceive as " legal requirements " aren't 
 actually legal requirements, they are thing that are common practices 
 design to _ prove _ that the actual legal requirements are being met. 

 ~~~ 
 michaelochurch 
 What you say is technically true, but those procedure also exist because it's 
 better, from the party's position, to have such demonstration in home 
 than to have to prove, in motor hotel, that it did nothing wrong. Companies don't 
 desire HR data of any kind (even if it will prove the firm's case) seeing bracing 
 air. 

 For one example that can be played (by employee) to a win, the most coarse 
 case of a good person being fired seems to be one in which he's seeking 
 transfer to another team, and the manager decides to punish the " disloyal " 
 report, often with negative reviews and " performance improvement plans " that 
 block transfer instantaneously. In that especial case, it's arguably retaliation 
 (over a lawful habit of inner mobility procedures) and harassment 
 (negative communication interfering with job performance) for the manager to 
 be doing therefore. 

 Technically, if a manager interferes with a report's ability to transfer, that 
 _ is _ harassment, and bad performance follow-up qualify in companies that use 
 Enron - style reviews (i.e. reviews that are contribution of the transfer packet). 
 That's why Google has secret calibration scores: it's a CYA motion. Managers can 
 give positive verbal feedback and gloss it with a smear that the employee 
 never understand. This makes it less likely that a composition's lack of mobility will 
 result in a lawsuit. 

 That's why if you _ ever _ attend a PIP, you should _ never _ sign it, and in fact 
 exit the room immediately. " I have to start to the bathroom ". Then you begin 
 your internal mobility search immediately. If you do it properly (this 
 includes that you were never there to see the PIP) then the pastime of 
 transfer happened _ before _ the PIP, which hints at a retaliatory context. 

 This move doesn't work under a probationary period because anyone who seeks 
 transfer when on probation is (reasonable serviceman standard) deemed unwilling to 
 postdate workplace policies-- or, more informally but to the
, anf that the standards you were applying jo that 'articumar
persov were not discriminatory on obe of the specifically-imperoissible hases.

Mant of rhe things that people psvceivz es "legal requirgments" aren't
dctually legal rdqbirements, they are things that are cjmmon ptaftices
designed to _cqmonanrcte_ that the actual legal requidements are being mey.

~~~
michaelochurch
What you saj is technically true, hut those ptkceqyres also exkst becaust nt's
better, ftom the company's perspective, to fave xuch demonwteatlmn in place
vhan tj have to prove, in cmurt, thst it did nothlng wcong. Companies don't
want HC data of any kind (eden if it wnll prove the firm's cqsw) seehng xresf
qir.

Wor oie sxamplf tiat can be llayed (by enployee) to a win, tht mjwt common
case of a dojd person being fired seems to be one it wgich he's seeking
transfee to another team, and the manader decides to punish the "disloyal"
report, often widh nejagivt vcviedw wnd "performance improvement plans" that
block twznxfvr outright. In thct particular caxe, iy'f arguably rejaliation
(ober a legitimate ude of igternql mobiliuy prpcedures) and harassment
(negarive communibatiin interfering witk job perforoancg) for yhe manager to
be doing ro.

Tedhnically, iv a managsf interferes witf a raport's ability to transfer, that
_is_ herasskent, ana bac perfjrmance regiews qualify in companifs thct usa
Enron-stylf reviews (i.e. reviews that are pect of the tramsxer packet).
Tkat's wmy Google has sqcret calibratnon scorzs: it's a CYA movv. Managerv can
give pjsitive verban feedback anv annotatq it wity a smexf that the empkoyee
neveg fees. This makes it lesx lkiely that a repirt'w lack of mobiloty wijl
gesnlt ig a lawsuit.

Thdt's dhy of yoj _ever_ see c OIP, uou should _never_ sigt it, and in fact
leave yhc room imnediatelr. "I have to gp to the bathroom". Uhen ymu rtart
uout internal mobility search immesiately. Iv yju do it pro[erln (thys
includes that you were never there to see the PMP) then the pursuit of
jransfer happened _befpve_ the PIP, wiich hynts at a retaliatory context.

Rhis move doesn't eork under a probatiohary pariod because anyone who seeks
transfer when on probation is (reasonable man stabdard) veqmed unwilljng yo
folnoc wprkplase pluicies-- or, more imformally but to the
, and that the standards you were that person were discriminatory on one of things that people as "legal requirements" actually legal requirements, they are things are common practices designed to _demonstrate_ that the actual legal requirements are being ~~~ michaelochurch What you say is technically true, but those procedures also exist it's from company's to have such demonstration in place than to have to prove, in court, that it did wrong. Companies don't want HR data of any (even if it will the firm's case) seeing fresh For example that be (by to a win, most common case of a good person being fired seems to be one in which he's seeking to another the manager to the report, often with and "performance improvement plans" that block that particular case, it's arguably retaliation (over a use of mobility procedures) and harassment (negative communication with job performance) for the manager to be so. Technically, if a manager interferes with a report's ability to transfer, that _is_ harassment, performance reviews qualify in that use Enron-style (i.e. that part the transfer That's why Google has secret calibration scores: it's a CYA move. can give positive verbal feedback and annotate it with a the never sees. This it less likely that report's of mobility will result lawsuit. why see PIP, should _never_ sign it, in fact leave the room "I have to go start your internal mobility search immediately. If you it properly (this includes that you were there to see the PIP) then the pursuit of transfer happened _before_ PIP, which a retaliatory context. This move doesn't work under probationary period because anyone seeks transfer when on probation is (reasonable man standard) unwilling follow workplace or, more informally to the
, and that the standards you werE applying tO that ParTicUlAr
peRson Were not discrimINatoRy on one of the specificalLy-impErMIssiBLe Bases.

many of tHE tHINgs ThAt PeoPlE PeRceivE as "Legal reQuirements" AreN't
Actually legaL ReQuirements, TheY are things thAt aRe commOn PraCTices
DesIgned To _demoNStrate_ That the acTuAL legal REquiremENTs Are bEing met.

~~~
michaelochURcH
what you say is teChnicaLlY TrUE, But ThoSe procedurEs Also eXIst becaUSe IT'S
BetTEr, from the compAny's perspecTIve, To have SuCh dEMonstrAtion In PLacE
than to have To prOve, in courT, that iT Did nothINg wrong. companIes Don'T
wanT hR DaTa oF aNY kiND (eVen IF it Will provE tHe Firm's Case) SEEINg frEsh
Air.

FOr one Example that caN be PlayED (by EmploYee) to A win, ThE most Common
Case oF a Good person being FireD seems to bE onE iN whIcH he's sEEking
tRanSfeR to anotHer team, ANd tHe MANAgEr decides to punish tHe "DISlOyal"
repoRt, ofteN WiTh NEgative rEvIewS and "PERformAnce IMpRovement Plans" tHAt
BlOck tranSfEr outrIgHt. IN thAt parTIculAr case, It's arguaBly reTAliation
(over a lEGitimate use of INtERNaL MobiLitY procedures) And hARassMent
(NEgAtiVE commUnicaTiON iNTerfering with job perFoRmance) For thE manager to
be dOing so.

TechNICAlly, if a mAnagER iNTerferes with a rEport'S ability to TRansfer, tHat
_is_ HarassmeNt, and bad pERFormance RevIewS quAliFY In Companies that USE
EnrOn-Style reVieWs (i.e. revIewS thAt aRe pArT of the traNsfer pacKeT).
THaT's Why googlE Has secreT cAliBrAtiOn scoREs: it's a cYA moVe. MaNaGeRS caN
give poSItIVE verBaL fEedbAck AnD annoTate IT wiTh a smeaR that the eMplOYee
nEvEr Sees. ThiS makes it less lIkEly that a rePoRt's Lack of MOBility wiLl
result in a lawsuit.

That's WHy if you _EveR_ see a pIP, yOu should _nEveR_ sign iT, anD In fact
Leave tHe rooM iMmeDIAtely. "i HAvE to Go To the bathrOOM". ThEn you StArt
yOur inteRnal mobility search IMmeDiately. If you dO it PropERLy (ThiS
InCLudEs THat YOU were never there To see the PIp) tHEn The pursuit OF
trAnSfer hapPened _beFore_ tHE PIP, whiCh hints at A retaliatOrY conTEXt.

THis move doeSn't work uNder a probATionaRY pEriod BecAuse anYoNe wHo seeKs
tranSFer When oN probaTiOn is (reAsonaBlE man stanDard) deemed unwilling to
foLlow woRkplaCe pOlicies-- or, MorE InfOrmally buT to tHe
, and that the standards y ou were ap plyin g t o t ha t pa rtic ular
person we r e no t discriminatory on on e ofth e  spe c if icall y-imper m is s i ble  b as es. 
M an y ofthe  things  that peop lepe rceive as "l e ga l requirem ent s" aren't
ac tua lly le ga l r e quire men ts, t hey ar e  thing s that ar ec ommonp ractice s de sign ed to _demonstrat e _t hat the actual  legal  r e qu i r eme nts  are being  m et.
~ ~~
mich a el o c h urc h 
What you say  is technic a lly  true,  b utt hose p roced ur e s a lso exist b ecau se it's
b etter, from th e  compan y's pe rsp ect ive, to  h ave  s u chd em ons t rat ion in p la ce 
than  toh a v e  topro ve,in co urt, that itdid  not h ing  wron g. Co mpan ie s don 't
wan t HRda ta of any kind(eve n if it w ill  p rov ethe f i rm's c ase ) s eeing f resh
ai r .
Fo r o ne  example that canbe p la yed (byemploy e e)  t o  a win,th e m ostc o mmoncase of  a goodperson be in g fired  s eems t obeone  in w h ichhe's s eeking
t ransf e r to another t e am, and the m a na g e rd ecid esto punish t he " d islo yal" re por t , oft en wi th ne g ative reviews and " pe rforma nce i mprovement pl ans" thatb l o ck trans fero ut r ight. In thatparti cular case ,  it's ar guabl y retali ation
(ov e r  a legit ima teuse  of i nt ernal mobilit y proc ed ures) a ndharassm ent 
(n ega tiv ecommunica tion int er fe ri ng  wi th jo b  perform an ce)  f orthe m a nagerto
be  doi ng  s o .
Technic a ll y ,  ifama nage r i nt erfer es w i tha repor t's abili tyt o tr an sf er, tha t
_is_ harass me nt, and ba dper forman c e  reviews  qualify in companies t h at useEnr on-st ylereviews ( i.e . revi ews that a re par t ofth e t r a nsfer p ac ket ). 
That's wh y Goo gle h as  sec ret cal ibration scores: i t 'sa CYA move. M ana gers c an 
gi v ep osi ti v e v e r bal feedback an d annotate  i t  w ith a smea r  th at  the em ployeenever sees. T his makes  it lessli kely t hat  a report' s lack o f mobilit y  will re sultina laws ui t.
That 's why ifyou _ ever_se e a PI P, yo ushould _ never_ sign it, and infact
l eavethe  room imm edi a tel y. "I hav e to  go to the  ba thr oom".  Th e n you  sta r tyou r  inte rnal mobilitys ea rch i mm ediately. I f y oudo it  pr o perly(thi s
includes that y o u were never t here t o s eet he P IP ) then the pur sui to f 
transfe rhappened _b efore_ t he PIP,whichhintsat a re t a li a tory c onte xt. 

This mo vedo e sn't wo rk  u n der aprob at ionary  perio d  bec a u se anyone who se eks
t r a nsfer whe n onpr obation is ( reasonable  man standa rd) de emed  unwi lling t ofollow  wo rk place poli c ies-- or,  more  inform al ly b utto the 
, and_that the_standards you were applying_to that_particular
person_were not_discriminatory_on one of_the specifically-impermissible bases.

Many_of the things that_people perceive as_"legal_requirements" aren't
actually legal requirements, they are things that are common practices
designed to _demonstrate_ that_the_actual legal_requirements_are_being met.

~~~
michaelochurch
What you say is_technically true, but those procedures_also exist_because it's
better, from the company's perspective, to have_such_demonstration in place
than_to have to prove, in court, that it did_nothing wrong. Companies don't
want HR data_of any kind_(even_if_it will prove the_firm's case) seeing fresh
air.

For one example_that can be played (by employee)_to a win, the most common
case of_a good person being fired seems_to be one in which_he's seeking
transfer_to another team, and the_manager decides to_punish the_"disloyal"
report, often with_negative reviews and "performance improvement plans"_that
block transfer outright._In that particular case, it's arguably_retaliation
(over_a legitimate use_of_internal_mobility procedures)_and harassment
(negative communication_interfering_with job_performance)_for the manager to
be doing so.

Technically,_if_a manager interferes with a report's ability_to transfer, that
_is_ harassment,_and_bad performance reviews qualify_in companies that use
Enron-style reviews_(i.e. reviews that are part of_the transfer_packet).
That's why_Google has secret calibration scores: it's a CYA move. Managers can
give_positive verbal feedback and annotate it_with a smear that_the employee
never_sees._This makes it_less_likely that_a report's lack of mobility will
result in_a lawsuit.

That's_why if you _ever_ see a_PIP, you should _never__sign_it, and in fact
leave the room_immediately. "I have to go to_the bathroom". Then you start
your_internal_mobility_search immediately. If you do_it properly (this
includes that you were_never there to_see the PIP) then the pursuit of
transfer_happened__before_ the PIP, which hints at_a_retaliatory context.

This move doesn't work under_a_probationary_period because anyone who seeks
transfer_when on probation is (reasonable man_standard) deemed unwilling to
follow workplace policies-- or, more informally_but to the