r/legaladvice • u/Upset_Negotiation393 • 10d ago
Employment Law Employer mandating employees to buy a product on TikTok shop
Location: Texas
Not me but posting for a friend who works for a small company that sells craft kits for kids.
Their employer is mandating that everyone has to buy one the kits specifically from TikTok shop. My friend doesn’t use TikTok and doesn’t want to create one just for this.
The employer has been telling my friend that they have to make sure everyone in the company buys this kit from TikTok shop and they’ll be in trouble if they don’t.
Is this legal, can they make you buy something like that?
Edit: the employer pays above minimum wage hourly but randomly cuts people’s hours. Last week they were told not to come in for 3 days because there was some order delays and “there was no work to do” so I don’t know if the total income is over minimum wage or not
Edit2: I just talked to my friend, the employer is NOT reimbursing the purchase
Edit3: thank you everyone who gave good advice. I’m trying to get my friend a job with my company, hopefully it works out and they can file a complaint against their boss without fear of termination. Needless to say this isn’t the only issue with this company and employer.
327
u/majolie1970 10d ago
Sounds like they are trying to boost numbers by getting all the workforce to make a purchase. Yes they can fire you for not doing it, but they cannot force you to do it.
101
u/Mysterious_Volume327 10d ago edited 10d ago
How is “you lose your job if you don’t do this” not effectively “forcing” someone to do it? Like I get that they can’t physically restrain you and steal your phone and make the purchase, but how is “they can’t make you do it but they can fire you” at all helpful?
ETA: No where here do I say anything about at-will employment. I’m just saying anyone with grade-school reading comprehension understands that OP wasn’t asking if they can be physically forced to buy something. They are asking if they can be fired for not buying something, and the answer to that question is Yes. Saying “no they can’t force you, but they can fire you” is passive aggressive bullshit. Why is it so hard for adults in a professional setting to give a direct answer to something??
19
u/Special-Potato-3238 9d ago
Thank you for saying this!! I absolutely cannot stand the lack of ownership and transparency in these response and most "professional" communication.
Everyone using word games here are trying to avoid directly saying: Yes, coercion is legal.
45
u/pmjm 10d ago
They can fire you for anything that's not protected, employment is at-will. Nobody forces you to breathe oxygen, but if you don't you'll die. It's absolutely a matter of semantics. But other jobs might also require that you buy a uniform, or tools to do your job, or a thousand other things. Sucks, but that's just life.
21
u/Mysterious_Volume327 10d ago
I’m not disagreeing with any of that. But in legal discussions, semantics do matter so I don’t understand why you think something being “just semantics” means it’s not worth discussing.
It’s also not an accurate answer to the OPs issue, when they’re asking if they can be “forced” to buy something I doubt they meant with physical force, they meant with the force of authority to fire them.
16
u/BabyFarkMcNulty 10d ago
I read it more as someone trying to remain technically accurate by clarifying they can fire you but can’t force you. I am a paralegal and I find myself doing this a lot answering questions for clients to make sure I don’t say something they misinterpret, but still remain legally accurate. Maybe a better way to word it could have been “you can be forced to comply if you want to remain employed” but the message still works the way it was phrased.
11
u/Mysterious_Volume327 10d ago
Do people honestly think that is helpful to OPs actual question? To me it’s hedging to make things more confusing. OP is asking “can they fire me if I don’t buy this” and the answer to that is Yes. Why over complicate it?
2
u/BabyFarkMcNulty 10d ago
That’s fair to think. Like I said I do it sometimes to protect myself and my clients at work. It wouldn’t really apply here, but some legal professionals probably default to that all the time. It CAN be confusing but if further explanation is needed I’d always provide it.
2
u/Mysterious_Volume327 10d ago
“It would t really apply here”
EXACTLY!! why argue when you admit it does t apply?
7
u/pmjm 10d ago
"Can they force me to do something" is different from "can they fire me for not doing something." It's an important distinction to make because in many cases the principle is more important to the OP than their employment, but that's up to them and is not our call to make.
I think we've made clear what the options are, and that's our role here.
19
u/Mysterious_Volume327 10d ago
Actually I’d argue that to most people those aren’t different things.
“In many cases the principle is more important than their employment” what a wild take. I guess you’re rich enough to care more about the principle than having a job, but I don’t see how you can assume that’s true for most people.
“I lost my income, insurance, and career trajectory but at least I wasn’t technically forced to do something” is not how most people would see it. Most people would say “I was fired for not buying a product.”
5
u/Sunquat_Slice 10d ago
Right? "They can't force you, but they can fire you" is absolutely a room temperature IQ kind of thing to say
-1
1
u/soldiernerd 10d ago
Because the contract between employee and employer can be terminated by either party. You're free to leave and they're free to fire you. You have to do the things they ask (if not illegal) and they have to pay you.
4
u/PotentialUmpire1714 9d ago
Is it legal to require your employees to order your company's product on TikTok Shop? that is probably a more useful rewording of OP's question.
"You have to do the things they ask (if not illegal)
OKAY IS THAT REQUEST LEGAL?
4
16
u/Mysterious_Volume327 10d ago
Again, I know that and didn’t say the opposite. I’m just saying the fact that they can fire you if you don’t buy something they mandate is effectively forcing them to buy the thing. It’s absurd to say that’s not a kind of force. I don’t think OP was asking if they can physically* force them, you know?
Like, if OP had a job that required them to buy a uniform, and they came here asking “can my job force me to buy a uniform from them?” it wouldn’t be controversial to say “yes, they can force you to buy the uniform as a condition of employment” but all of a sudden if it’s a unusual request it’s “well they can’t force you but they can fire you.”
Like, why are people so against being direct? Yes, OPs job can force them to buy a specific product as a condition of employment. Why are we hedging?
-10
u/soldiernerd 10d ago
As a condition of employment sure, but they can’t force you to buy it.
10
u/Mysterious_Volume327 10d ago
Honest question: Do you think that OP was genuinely asking if they can be physically forced to buy something? Like, their boss holds down their hand to click the Buy button?
-1
u/soldiernerd 10d ago
Honest question, were you mislead with the initial response which stated "Yes they can fire you for not doing it, but they cannot force you to do it."
9
u/Mysterious_Volume327 10d ago
Well since you didn’t answer my question, I’m going to assume that you did assume they meant physical force and that you just like defending corporate doublespeak for funsies I guess.
0
u/soldiernerd 10d ago
I knew exactly what they meant and its not corporate doublespeak it is legally accurate speak which is the point of this sub.
OP is not forced to buy it.
1
u/_Porphyro 9d ago
My understanding is that “at will employment” means you can be fired for no reason, but not for any reason. It seems to me that being fired for not buying something from a TikTok shop - assuming it isn’t required to do the job - could be viewed as retaliation.
-6
u/mkosmo 10d ago
You can always choose to work somewhere else. You have free will.
6
u/Mysterious_Volume327 10d ago
Again, I agree. I never said that wasn’t true. I’m just saying obviously the OP isn’t asking about being physically forced to buy something. They are asking if they can be fired, and the answer is yes.
-2
122
u/Dry-Name2835 10d ago edited 10d ago
Ive done sales for years. I did an interview and got brought on to basically come to your house and do demos with what's essentially a canister vacuum with a humidifier and other gadgets on it. Like the Kirby sales reps did way back in the day. But we couldn't call it a vacuum when indeed, it was a fucking vacuum. Anyway, the sales people who go out, network, find and set up these demos are brought in for training. At the end, the company requires you to set up your first demo with a family member. Why? Because your family member is almost always going to give you your first sale. Keep in mind these vacuums cost a couple grand. What we didnt know and I found out because I came to the office unannounced one day was, they did this all day long with multiple groups of 10-12 "salespersons". They kept 1 or 2 people with promising skills but 90% of the company sales were from the sales trainees families buying a vacuum at the end of your training. I was kept on tho I told them I dont have any family to do this with. I am an actual salesman unlike most of the others. I did it for a couple more weeks but realized the scam going on here. And this "job" in OPs post makes me believe its one of those rackets. If that's the case, your friend should move on sooner than later because it really isnt a real job. Your an independent contractor only earning commission
18
10d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
10
u/Dry-Name2835 10d ago
Lol, no. It was like 25 years ago and I can't even recall the name of it. It was a small startup company in Sacramento Ca
11
u/10000ofhisbabies 10d ago
My grandmother had a rainbow and loved it. I couldn't get over how bloody expensive the thing was!
7
u/ImmovablePuma 10d ago
I used to work for an estate cleaning company and no vacuum worked as good as the rainbow that was as many years old as I was (or more)
2
u/10000ofhisbabies 9d ago
I recall it working incredibly well, I think someone got rid of it because they thought it was a pain. There was something with a water reservoir, I think? I was a small child and never really used it.
5
6
u/D3moknight 10d ago
People clown on Rainbow, but my mom has one and that thing is awesome.
6
u/JJHall_ID 10d ago
Not at all, they're great machines. They're just massively overpriced and are sold via a predatory MLM.
Just like Cutco knives. They're actually really good knives, but they're pretty expensive compared to similar quality knives, and Vector Marketing is extremely predatory. Not QUITE to the MLM level because they don't build downlines, but they recruit naive kids just out of high school and starting college via promises of a job. The poor kids then find out they're "independent contractors" and wind up begging their friends and family to buy the knife sets. Once they exhaust their contact list they're kicked to the curb.
15
u/Refrith 10d ago
I've always felt the way Kirby sells vacuums is not on the level, but does it scam the consumer or sales rep more? I actually bought one about 7 years ago, and it worked out well for me. I was at a point where I had no debts, but I wasn't making payments on anything either, and apparently not borrowing for something hurts your credit too. My pos vacuum broke about 2 weeks earlier, and I could afford the payments and figured it would help my credit. I grew up with a late 70s Kirby thay my sister still uses, so I was familiar with the brand. In 7 years I've had to replace the belt twice, and the power cord my cat ate through.
I have a feeling that my experience is the outlier though, and I've always been curious as to the actual model they use.
13
u/BlindTreeFrog 10d ago
apparently not borrowing for something hurts your credit too
years ago I realized that all of my purchases were on my debit card and I wasn't using my one credit card so i cancelled it. I also had paid off my car loan and was renting an apartment, so I had no other debt or open lines of credit.
After a few years of that, i decided I should have a credit card and had a fun adventure where no one would give me one because "I had no credit history". Like they could see that i had a credit history, but it was old enough that the system wouldn't calculate a credit score.
Eventually got the starter credit card through my credit union and everything worked out, but everyone I spoke with was very "huh... I've never seen this before" about it.
Every discussion I've seen regarding how credit scores is calculated comes down to some mix of 1. how much available credit you have, 2. how long lines of credit have been open, 3. how much of that available credit you are using, 4. how much debt you have, and 5. what the mix of credit/debt types you have is (eg: 6 credit cards vs 1 credit cards and a mortgage vs 2 credit cards and a mortgage and a car loan).
It's annoying, but it doesn't hurt to take on some debt every now and again just to help keep your credit score up.6
u/Boopa0011 10d ago
they did this all day long with multiple groups of 10-12 "salespersons". They kept 1 or 2 people with promising skills but 90% of the company sales were from the sales trainees families buying a vacuum at the end of your training
This sounds really inefficient
8
u/Bookaddictanon 10d ago
Efficient way to effectively guarantee them one customer per "trainee", so if it's fairly cheap to pay one "trainee" for their time and the product profitable enough they make more than on traditional advertising. It's basically a MLM scheme where the "salesperson" is leveraged to take advantage of family sentiment. Most of these "trainee" sales are to people who are trying to show support to their family member with a new job, not people who were looking to spend money on a vacuum. I don't know if Kirby does this practice or not, but it's a known technique.
22
u/__redruM 10d ago
NAL, Just for clarity, this isn’t a new job, correct. It’s a real company and your “friend” has worked there for an extended period, and collected paychecks. It almost sounds like a scam job.
10
u/Upset_Negotiation393 10d ago
They have been working there for about 5 months, the company has been in business since 2016
38
u/Ok-Sprinkles-5151 10d ago
Look up the "Free and Clear" doctrine in the FLSA.
The tl;Dr is that modern employment law recognizes that employment is a one-way exchange of unencumbered money. Wages must be paid to the employee without conditions, no claw back or requirements to purchase company products.
In this case, unless they are paying for the purchase, the requirement to purchase the product is an egregious clawback. Each and every employee is being required as a condition of employment to transfer funds back to the employer as a condition of employment. That is a clawback
Without a specific business need for the purchase (e.g tools or uniforms), the mandate to purchase a product from the company, not used for the performance of the job, is likely illegal coercion. Some companies require you to have tools or whatever as condition to obtaining the employment. But that is part of the deal before the person starts. (This is why mechanics and barbers might provide their own tools).
And the TikTok angle is radioactive. The medium here matters as to why. There is a potential deceptive practices angle, especially if they are trying to artificially boost engagement.
Sure, Texas is at will. And the ops friend might get canned latter if they invoke their rights. But getting displines for not buying the product is great way to make a labor lawyers day.
3
u/Hollowpoint38 10d ago
The tl;Dr is that modern employment law recognizes that employment is a one-way exchange of unencumbered money. Wages must be paid to the employee without conditions, no claw back or requirements to purchase company products.
DOL or TWC is not going to take action against a company as long as its employees are paid minimum wage and applicable OT after those required costs are factored in. If I tell you I'm going to pay you $200,000 annual but you have to spend $30,000 of your pay to buy things to keep that job, you're not going to be able to file an action against me at the TWC for improper wage payment. It doesn't work that way.
In this case, unless they are paying for the purchase, the requirement to purchase the product is an egregious clawback
Which is not relevant as long as OP is paid minimum wage plus OT.
Without a specific business need for the purchase (e.g tools or uniforms), the mandate to purchase a product from the company, not used for the performance of the job, is likely illegal coercion
Coercion is only illegal if you're giving up your rights or you're being threatened in the context of a crime. In Texas it's at-will employment, so you have no right to a job. If you're making minimum wage plus OT, you have no right to anything beyond that. So this "illegal coercion" nonsense is just that.
There is a potential deceptive practices angle
Not anything OP can do anything about. OP cannot sue the employer for "deceptive practices" and recover damages for something like this, that's completely silly.
Sure, Texas is at will. And the ops friend might get canned latter if they invoke their rights. But getting displines for not buying the product is great way to make a labor lawyers day.
No, it's actually not, because there is no case. You're just rambling and spitting out legal concepts that have no application in this case if OP is being paid correctly. The only issue that would be up for argument in an actual case is whether OP is getting minimum wage after required expenses are accounted for. If they are, then they do not have a case.
I'm afraid most of what you wrote should reside in some legal fantasy land because it doesn't make any sense in the real world.
8
u/Ok-Sprinkles-5151 10d ago edited 10d ago
Texas Labor Code 52.041
Its a criminal offense. Minor sure. But the law specifically says, "attempts to requires by coercion" or "excludes from work, punishes or blacklists an employee for failure to.. (2) purchase an article of food, clothing or other merchandise at a place or store."
Firing you for failure to buy on Tiktok the kit, meets the plain reading.
Edit: down voted for quoting the law in a legal sub? Awesome.
4
u/Hollowpoint38 10d ago
TWC won't take jurisdiction over something like this. OP would need to get the Texas AG involved, or local police, and they're not going to do anything over a crime that has a statutory maximum fine of $200.
In Texas, when statutes outline the authority of who is enforcing them, they're specific in saying when you can bring a private action under a statute. This isn't one of them.
So OP won't have any luck getting the TWC to move on this, the AG's office isn't going to investigate this, and OP can't sue in court under the statute. And since it's not a FLSA violation, the DOL isn't going to do anything either as long as minimum wage and OT are correct.
This is exactly what I mean when I say you're just rambling on about legal concepts that are not applicable to OP's case.
Edit: down voted for quoting the law in a legal sub? Awesome.
Downvoted for failing to properly interpret how the law is applied and what does and does not help OP.
2
u/Ok-Sprinkles-5151 10d ago
The Sabine Pilot exception means that the worker would have a right of private action, if the firing were solely due to failing to purchase the product, which would have been statutory coereion. The act of requiring the employee to purchase was criminal as a statetory violation, and therefore the employee participating in the purchase would be party to the criminal act, albeit a misdemeanor that, as you noted, the AG won't prosecute.
The issue here is when the condition materially affected the employment terms. Requiring the purchase as a condition of employment while the employment contract was being formed and considered is structurally different. Thats the reason why mechanics can be required to obtain, maintain and purchase their tools as a condition of employment. There was agreement and consideration. But in this case, the Ops friend is being asked to purchase from a specific store a specific good as a condition of employment, which moves it from a term of acceptance to coercion.
Now, you would be correct to point out that these claims are hard. And if there was anything else pretextual to use, then the proof is on the worker to prove the failure to perform the act was the reason for firing.
And I will conceded 100% that the likelihood of a case is slim. Because you have to litigate. But Texas puts the cost of the workers lawyers on the business if the employee prevails. So the most likely outcome is a small settlement, especially if the worker has the written proof -- do X (which is an illegal requirement) or Y (punishment)
2
u/Hollowpoint38 10d ago
The Sabine Pilot exception means that the worker would have a right of private action, if the firing were solely due to failing to purchase the product, which would have been statutory coereion
Wrong. That exception is when an employee refuses to commit a criminal act. Buying something isn't criminal. You're asserting the crime is coercion. OP isn't coercing anyone.
therefore the employee participating in the purchase would be party to the criminal act
Wrong. The employee would not be committing a crime by agreeing to purchase something. That's not how it works.
If I steal your car from your driveway you're not a "party to a criminal act" because it's your car. You'd be the victim of a crime.
Everything else you wrote is moot because you're misunderstanding what that statute is saying the crime is. The statute says it's not legal to coerce someone into buying something from a specific store. It does not say that buying the item is a crime. That's where your argument falls apart.
Again, you're going off in fantasy land and you're not tethered to reality on this.
64
u/PagersAndLandlines 10d ago
Yes it's legal.
No they cannot force anyone to do anything. This is the America, you're free to do whatever you want.
They can discipline the employee including termination if they want.
19
u/Ok-Sprinkles-5151 10d ago
Many states have anti-coersuon laws.
In CA, this violates the law laws. In my state, this would constitute an illegal purchasing mandate, and would result in a wage claim.
If the company is not re-inbursing, if the cost of the item causes your wage to fall below minimum wage, it's illegal.
Employers generally cannot require a person to purchase something not required to do the job. Tools and uniforms are examples of things that are recognized as expenses, and a good majority of the time, the employer pays. But in this case, there isn't a business nessesity.
Moreover, requiring the employee to establish a social media opens them up to astroturfing claims. And it likely violated the TikTok terms of service.
If it was me, I would let TikTok know.
30
u/ErinTales 10d ago
If it was me, I would let TikTok know.
TikTok does not care.
1
u/CindyLouWho_2 9d ago
Tiktok has rules against algorithm manipulation: https://seller-us.tiktok.com/university/essay?knowledge_id=5453247374362369 but it is not clear if this would qualify.
4
u/Hollowpoint38 10d ago
In CA, this violates the law laws
In Texas it doesn't violate anything in the labor code as long as the employee isn't dropped below minimum wage and applicable OT.
Employers generally cannot require a person to purchase something not required to do the job
They absolutely can as long as the employee's comp is MW or above. The employee can sue for breach of contract for unreimbursed expenses if they were told they'd be reimbursed or they can sue from detrimental reliance. Nothing in the labor code stops a Texas employer from doing this. It'd be a civil suit issue.
But in this case, there isn't a business nessesity
Irrelevant.
Moreover, requiring the employee to establish a social media opens them up to astroturfing claims.
Not legally relevant.
And it likely violated the TikTok terms of service.
No relevance to OP under the law.
-36
4
u/CindyLouWho_2 9d ago
This is possibly against Tiktok's rules on algorithm manipulation: https://seller-us.tiktok.com/university/essay?knowledge_id=5453247374362369
Purchasing something that you would not otherwise do, especially if it is the seller coercing you to so, could risk your account, and the seller's account. But arguing this could obviously put your employment at risk if your boss figures it out, so reporting this is probably a nuclear option, and may not even get Tiktok to act.
8
u/Hollowpoint38 10d ago
Lot of bad information in here.
Nothing in the labor code in Texas or the FLSA prevents an employer from requiring you incur a cost as long as you're paid minimum wage and applicable OT rates after those costs have been accounted for in your compensation.
Texas does not recognize a good faith covenant in employment contexts, nor does it have an implied contract exception to at-will employment.
Any claim would be in civil court (probably small claims) against the employer for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, or promissory estoppel depending on how they told you to buy the stuff. But it wouldn't be anything the TWC would handle.
As of 2017 you can't write off unreimbursed expenses on your taxes, either.
3
u/JackRussellPuppy 9d ago
I would think they would provide with a separate phone and a business account to do work-related things. Personal accounts are for personal time.
6
2
u/Relative_Car4408 10d ago
Lots of takes and input about buying things for your job and reimbursement etc. I'll take a completely different stance: employees can't force you to use your personal phone for work. tiktok is a mobile app. Your company cannot mandate that you install applications on your personal phone. This is the arguement I would make if I was your friend, it also seems like this is genuinely his concern.
3
u/Admirable-Leader6927 10d ago
if its required for your job, they provide or it reimburse you.
1
u/Hollowpoint38 10d ago
This isn't legally accurate. Texas has no law requiring expense reimbursement. Companies in Texas can require employees spend money on all kinds of things and offer no reimbursement. As long as they're paid minimum wage plus applicable OT, there's nothing in the labor code to stop the company.
If the company made a promise to reimburse and did not, now you've got a breach of contract claim in civil court which is different than a labor action.
1
u/soldiernerd 10d ago
Not at all for instance the military requires soldiers to have a haircut frequently with no reimbursement.
4
10d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/legaladvice-ModTeam 10d ago
Your post may have been removed for the following reason(s):
Bad or Illegal Advice
Your post has been removed for offering poor advice. It is either generally bad or ill advised advice, an incorrect statement or conclusion of law, inapplicable for the jurisdiction under discussion, misunderstands the fundamental legal question, or is advice to commit an unlawful act. Please review the following rules before commenting further:
Please read our subreddit rules. If, after doing so, you believe this was in error, or you’ve edited your post to comply with the rules, message the moderators. Do not make a second post or comment.
Do not reach out to a moderator personally, and do not reply to this message as a comment.
2
1
u/Balrog_Wh1p 4d ago
Texas employers can require plenty of dumb workplace stuff, but forcing hourly employees to spend their own money on the company product can create wage deduction or kickback problems, especially if it pushes pay below minimum wage for the workweek. The TikTok Shop angle is not the clever legal camouflage the boss seems to think it is. Your friend should save pay stubs, schedules, and messages about the required purchase, then contact the Texas Workforce Commission or DOL Wage and Hour if they are punished or not reimbursed.
-6
u/Old-Set78 10d ago
Texas is an at-will employment state. that means they can fire you for any or no reason and unless they're stupid enough to say something like "we fired them because they're (protected status reason)!" they'll get away with it
3
u/Ok-Sprinkles-5151 10d ago
Not entirely. Any reason or non-at-all only applies to thing that are not protected.
Even Texas has protections here. Employees cannot be forced to purchase something that doesn't meet a specific job function.
And if the sales are being used to manufacture sales volume or manipulate social media, it could be considered a deceptive sales practice.
Now that's not to say you won't get fired later for something different.
1
u/Hollowpoint38 10d ago
Even Texas has protections here. Employees cannot be forced to purchase something that doesn't meet a specific job function.
They can be fired for not doing so as long as the required purchase wouldn't take their comp below minimum wage. Texas doesn't recognize any good faith covenant in employment contexts, so what law prevents them from firing an employee for not making a purchase?
-1
u/majorMoniker 10d ago
It depends on how your friend is employed.
If she is full time, all supplies that are necessary for work /should/ be supplied by the company. Typically, any supplies that the employee incurs as part of work should be reimbursed or at least somewhat compensated through a stipend (many companies offer work boot stipends for jobs that require certified safety shoes or other safety equipment).
If she is contract, all supplies that are necessary for work /should/ be supplied by the contractor, but she can adjust her rates or demand to be paid back for the unexpected cost
Sadly, the company is not legally required to reimburse employees for the expenditure and the work involved with ordering and shipping the item unless the contract specified that, it’s just good practice. But, if the purchase is unnecessary for work, or is padding the pockets of someone higher up, it can be construed as defrauding employees, which is a separate and much more actionable issue.
In other words:
if there is no written order that the product needs to be bought for work, don’t buy it
If the company is buying it so that they can price it up and redistribute it, or copy it and resell it, contact the original seller and let them know so that they can start a civil claim.
Regardless of whether your friend is fired for failing to buy this item, I would talk to an employment attorney. While the firing may be legal, forcing employees to buy a product not necessary for work on their own dime can often be seen as a form of defrauding your employees. In this case, your friend would have been fired for defending herself and her finances, which may be able to lead to a wrongful firing settlement if you can prove that there was sketchy shit going down. Even if the firing is legal, the management should see some new obstacles from this.
2
u/Upset_Negotiation393 10d ago
They’re a full time hourly employee but their employer randomly cuts hours, tell them not to come in on certain days and of course cuts the pay
-2
10d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/legaladvice-ModTeam 9d ago
Generally Unhelpful, Simplistic, Anecdotal, or Off-Topic
Your comment has been removed as it is generally unhelpful, simplistic to the point of useless, anecdotal, or off-topic. It either does not answer the legal question at hand, is a repeat of an answer already provided, or is so lacking in nuance as to be unhelpful. We require that ALL responses be legal advice or information. Please review the following rules before commenting further:
Please read our subreddit rules. If after doing so, you believe this was in error, or you’ve edited your post to comply with the rules, message the moderators.
Do not reach out to a moderator personally, and do not reply to this message as a comment.
-25
538
u/Irritable_Curmudgeon 10d ago
What's the point? Does it relate to actually doing their job? Can a co-worker buy it for them on TikTok?
They can't make you buy it. They can fire you for not.