Teenager wegen Tragens von Turnschuhen entlassen, erhält 30.000 Pfund Entschädigung, nachdem er seine Chefs verklagt hat

Reading ‘Fake Law’ by the Secret Barrister and it has a great chapter on how this gets misreported. Typically, you see the silliest phrasing possible in the headline, and then it becomes clear from the article that the discrimination or bullying is more egregious than it’s made to sound. This article is no different, as the body text makes clear she wasn’t held to the same standards as her colleagues, which is textbook discrimination.

Good on her. The more allowing workplace bullying hits employers where it hurts (their bank account), the more incentivised they’ll be to do something about it.

I worked for Maximus in 2012, and while the experience was dreadful experience. Maximus is an American company that implements American employment solutions. The senior management seemed entirely profit-driven, putting immense pressure on middle management to meet targets. This led to the exploitation of workers, who, in turn, lost focus on genuinely supporting vulnerable people and instead prioritised hitting arbitrary targets.

During my time there, some of the most “successful” employees were exploiting loopholes to push individuals into self-employment simply to qualify for what was then the Working Tax Credit. They advised people that even if they didn’t earn any income, they could still receive similar benefits through the tax credit system. This practice offered no real support or sustainable outcomes for those in need.

When the company’s contract was coming to an end, they attempted to manage out the entire staff force to avoid paying redundancy money. This was not only unethical but also indicative of their disregard for employee welfare. Instead of providing proper support or transitioning staff respectfully, they sought to cut costs at every opportunity, further undermining morale and trust.

In my opinion, companies like Maximus should not be allowed to work with vulnerable individuals. Their practices fail to provide meaningful assistance and instead exploit public funds. It’s deeply concerning that the DWP continues to partner with such organisations, including other American companies like Fedcap (even thought they claim they are not for profit) which appear to prioritise profit for board members and senor staff over service delivery. The lack of proper checks and oversight by the DWP enables these companies to deliver subpar services while draining public resources. This system urgently needs reform.

So unexpected. A company that thrives on bullying people was also bullying other employees.

jfc Mirror website is unreadable on mobile, thrice as much ads as texts and they keep loading so the body of texts keeps moving

I think they should send sub-editors to jail for writing such misleading headlines.

This will be an unpopular opinion, and I’ll start by saying it sounds like there’s a lot that’s not been shared in the article based on the size of the judgment, and the employers were clearly behaving badly, but this line from the judge is totally wrong and disconnected from reality:

>“The fact is to fail the probationary period at all is highly unusual, and there is no satisfactory explanation as to why Ms Benassi only lasted three months.”