Thread regarding Qualcomm Inc. layoffs

To HR: "we have a no tolerance policy against any type of retaliation.". What does this essentially mean? What action do you or would you take if an act of retaliation was brought to you with enough proof. Would you (1) discredit the employees concerns and tell them they are delusional? ...... (2). Would you pretend to go back and look into this and after a month of letting the issue rest, get back to the reporter stating you did look into it and the employee is delusional. (3). Would you go back to the manager being accused of retaliation and give them a heads up, tell the accused that an employee is dellusional and making charges against him, so watch out for the employee? ..... Sorry been there done that.. Reported and got slammed before already...

Hey HR, S&M: here I go again: GO F*** YOURSELF

Please feel free to contact us directly with any work related concerns you may have. Your feedback will be treated in confidence and we have a no tolerance policy against any type of retaliation.

HR definitely monitors this. All statements are reviewed for derogatory or abusive language. Since most cannot match up to Foulmouth, we pressure the website to take the thread down.

Again, let me assure you that, everything we do, have been passed through legal department's .....

... fine comb. Don't shoot me, I am just the messenger and fully sympathize with your inability to vent without restrictions on this site.

HR would have a really hard time f***ing themselves, because their heads are already stuck up the a$$.

Or course QC HR watches this.

Hey HR: go f*** yourself!

Maybe QC HR think they are in the same camp as the capitalists. Capitalists find it fine to abuse workers for profit. Well, workers find it fine to kill the capitalists. Killing comes in many ways, like abandoning the company and not buying the products. Capitalists die when their business dies. Capitalists cannot exist without workers, and so it is prudent to preserve their asset.

The worse thing a company could do to reverse public outcry is to get into the mud. It is even worse when, QC HR tries to intimidate the employees. People are upset over layoffs, and the opinions and observations seem to bring out what is wrong with QC today. There are many problems that brewed over last several years, while QC pushed for market dominance. Somewhere along the way, ethics seems to have been pushed aside by greed. Business is good until it becomes abusive. HR, who and what are you trying to protect?

@161836: I think QC HR and QC legal do monitor this site. While some of the HR people may be unprofessional enough to post things, I don't think QC legal would risk it. It's unethical to abuse the position to threaten lawsuits. The worst thing QC legal probably does is issue "takedown notices" for posts that are clearly defamatory or that could be construed as contributing to a hostile work environment.

I interpreted the most recent posting claiming to be from an attorney to mean that QC could be sued for infringing on people's speech rights. On the other hand.... As I understand it, YES, DEFAMATION IS ACTIONABLE. First, the statement must be (1) false, and (2)intentionally (3)communicated to third parties as truth. Broadcasting on this forum is arguably enough to satisfy the "intentional communication" requirement. (And yes, if the plaintiff wants to go through the cost of filing a suit and taking discovery, they can subpoena the web addresses of responsible persons.) Repeating a false statement can also get you in trouble--even if you were mistaken; even as a joke if it isn't immediately obvious. So can using initials or partial names, or even vague references that can be figured out by others. (Remember, no one ever mentioned Paula Jones' name in connection with Clinton until SHE went public and revealed she was the girl in the Governor's hotel room!) It's the falsehood coupled with YOUR intentional communication that matters. But truth is an absolute defense to defamation. So if certain people really DID use their QCOM web address to sign onto AM, or slept their way to the top, they may be sht out of luck. Defamation is extremely difficult to prove without the specific naming of names and facts. The person who is suing can't just claim, "Some person on thelayoff.com said mean and defamatory things about me!" If you think having "icky" stuff posted about you on a website like thelayoff.com is embarrassing, wait until you file a pleading on an electronic docket that any attorney--and possibly any potential employer--can access. In addition to the higher pleading standard of "particularity," the plaintiff in a defamation suit must (4)plead and prove that s/he suffered harm measured in damages as a direct result of the defamatory statements, and that the (5)damages were reasonably foreseeable. Rumor, speculation, and opinion are often not enough to get you more than $1 in nominal damages for mere "butthurt." The exceptions include certain "slanders per se" which require no proof of damages, because they are automatically presumed to cause substantial harm to reputation for which the plaintiff can be awarded "special damages." These slanders such as intentional false accusations of (i)criminal acts, (ii)loathsome diseases, (iii) defamation of business reputation, and (iv) un-chastity. In the cases of public persons, the standard of proof is even higher. Public figures must have (1) interjected themselves into the resolution of an issue or controversy; (2) the issue ... must be one ... that affects at least a substantial segment of the general public; (3) the alleged defamation must have resulted from the issue. In this case, SM and other high ranking officers would arguably have public figure status because (1) QC is a major employer in SD, and they are directly involved in a mass layoff/"pivot" (whatever the hell that is....); (2) a substantial number of people are affected, not just as employees, but as local business persons who depend on the spending of local engineers. It creates a ripple effect; (3) Any comments on this board about SM are most likely from disgruntled employees who have been impacted by the layoff. In such cases, the plaintiff must show that there is fault on the part of the publisher/person intentionally communicating the false statement. In other words, the communicator/publisher must either know that the statement was false, or have communicated/published with reckless disregard for the truth. So.... Is it defamatory that people publicly printed that SM was awarded $51 MM in RSUs after the last layoff? Most likely not--even if you are off by a few hundred thousand due to a rounding error. Something of that import would probably not even pass the sniff test for invasion of privacy because the Board has to make such things public in various financial disclosures. It can be verified. What about spending $68 MM on a new Gulfstream after the recent layoff? Apparently true. Even if that was supposed to be "hush-hush," these sorts of expenditures eventually become a matter of the Board's records, to which, hypothetically a S/H can get access. Most of us are S/Hs--if we didn't sell off at about 65--which is looking better! Plus it's hard to hide that 6th jet with the company logo in the hangars at local airports. That certain Officers lack adequate technical skills? A bit dicier. Arguably, you are attacking "professional reputation." Is it true? You don't know without personal observation or experience. Lack of personal knowledge puts you on shaky legal ground. On the other hand, if he's high enough up to delegate this sort of work to us "peons," and it's not really part of his job description, does it really affect his reputation? This "rant" is just to give you some idea of how Defamation works. THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE! IF YOU EVER GET SUED, CALL THE S.D. Co. BAR ASSOC. FOR A RECOMMENDATION FOR SOMEONE WHO ACTUALLY KNOWS SOMETHING! I'm just getting sick of the pretend HR trolls attempting to scare us. It's juvenile that a major corporation fcks up a layoff, then wonders why people are upset. IMHO

Agree no more! HR and those bastards are parasites. They become communists by threatening and intimidating QC people.

When this site became very active some months ago, more posts written in legal styles and started to appear. It was QC HR and legal at work trying to stir up fear. What a bunch of bastards? (a statement of opinion directed to an unnamed BS groups) Do you think that fear and intimidation are the QC way? It looks like it is now. All QC people should abandon this once a great company now infested with bunch of parasites.

It's the same few people (not even sure they work at QC, never mind in HR or Legal depts.) that try to perpetuate the lie that you can be held liable for posting OPINIONS about anyone who works here, never mind about our senior execs and their incompetence. UNLESS you threaten to do harm or perform an ILLEGAL act against someone on here, there is NO legal remedy whatsoever, either by HR or by QC in general.

In short, STOP TRYING TO SCARE PEOPLE INTO CENSORING THEMSELVES!!!

yawn

Yes, we monitor this site and have every right to do so. This site will provide us with IP addresses for threatening posts.

161709 and 161729 - BS. Post a up some proof on how people can get in trouble for expressing opinions on an anonymous site. F@@king liars.

Libel and slander are real and IP addresses are discoverable.

I hate to break it to all of you cyber bullies out there, but what you post IS actionable on here. And the best part is, you can end up in prison, not just broke. "Opinion" that crosses over to harrassment, bullying, stalking, intentional harm all are actionable, and I can't wait to see you in jail, fired, and under a mountain of legal bills. You WILL be exposed. How would you feel if what is being posted was directed at your mother, your sister, your daughter? Did you fail to learn if you don't have something nice to say, then shut your mouth? Watch out because karma sucks.

Why do people like you keep posting this same crap? HR cant do anything with his site because all posts are rumors and peoples opinions. Even when posting names, it's one or two peoples opinion. When is it against the law to say you hate someone or someone should be demoted? This forum is about expressing your opinion and keeping rumors alive and fun. The person who keeps posting this shit needs to stop or stay away. You are a f@@king idiot. Let me say again. You are a f@@king idiot.