Working for the man....

I've never considered myself anti-establishment. I will admit, at times, to having been envious of those who were. Willingly, and satisfyingly, living in poverty all in the name of personal freedom and liberty is a lifestyle I definitely could not do. Despite my closet admiration, I never understood their disdain, or even hatred, of government, corporations, and capitalism; until now.

The events of the last few weeks - my rough day, further delays in finalizing a relocation date - caused me to recognize some validity in the concerns of the antiestablishmentarianists. Before I elaborate, recognize that I do not believe this scenario, but lack of sleep, external stressors, and information voids can awaken the paranoid in all of us.

Consider two scenarios:

1) Senior management of a major organization decides they don't like one of their mid-level managers. Conniving and cunning, they decide to make life difficult for this manager. They realize that the manager's skills are marketable, so simply firing the person would have minimal impact. Instead, they decide to make an offer that is impossible to refuse, but one that causes major upheaval in the manager's life - relocation. The manager makes significant plans with his family, spends a large amount of money in preparation, and sells off many of his belongings in preparation. Then, a few days before the relocation, they inform the manager that, instead of relocating, he's being demoted. A few weeks after that, it's a pay cut. Then, finally, amid other "layoffs", they let the manager go.

2) Mid-level manager decides she is fed up with how a company is treating her. She is on key projects, spending considerable effort to get them completed at considerable personal sacrifice. She receives no recognition, no additional compensation. She could leave the company at a key point in her projects, but they would just find someone - or, more likely, a group of people - to pick up where she left off and they'd probably only lose a week or so against the timeline. She also recognizes that the market is tough. So, she decides to obtain her compensation and get revenge on the company another way - she sells off important, but not proprietary information: customer lists, pricing structures, but doesn't give away any patented or company secrets. When the market picks up, she leaves and joins the company she sold the information to, and brings several clients with her.


Now, you are an attorney. You have time to take on one case, and you only get paid if you win. The fee for winning is the same, regardless of which case you take on. Do you represent the manager in Scenario 1, or the company in Scenario 2?

The laws of our country make winning a case against the employer in Scenario 1 nearly impossible, even with substantial evidence. Scenario 2, on the other hand, if you have just one example of unauthorized selling of company information, that manager goes to jail. Period.

I believe that you don't find companies that condone the behavior in Scenario 1 but that you will find hundreds if not thousands of employees who would do Scenario 2 for the right price. I'm also quite concerned with the fact that the law leaves the manager in Scenario 1 with little recourse. Maybe the antiestablishmentarianists are on to something.