Dov Charney, Goldman Sachs and Other Horrible Bosses

We're a pretty laid back bunch of folks here at Savings.com, but sometimes we hear workplace stories that make us do a double-take. As much as we wish these stories were mere fiction, the links inside prove that the truth is much stranger.

• A co-worker's previous company was unlucky enough to be in competition with Voldemort--whoops, our bad, we meant "He Who Must Not Be Named," or "You Know Who." Apparently, employees weren't allowed to speak aloud the name of the rival firm for fear of being Avada Kedavra'd--or something.


• A Goodwill in Washington Iowa fired a thirty-year-old employee with Downs syndrome after his mother bought him a $3 shirt. Why? A Goodwill policy bans employees from purchasing Goodwill merchandise while on days they were working. In this case, the employee's mother made clear she was just a family member and was not employed by Goodwill. Another employee rung up the sale. At no point did the employee in question buy clothes for himself. And yet, when he reported to work the next day, he was fired.


• Perhaps you've giggled at the iPhone vs. Evo Youtube video making the rounds on the net. Brian Maupin used an online animator to create a short on his experiences hawking smartphones at a Best Buy. "I want the one with the bigger gee bees" began popping up as status messages and the video now has 7.6 million views. Though Best Buy is never mentioned, they canned Maupin because they "felt [the video] disparaged a brand they carried (iPhone/Apple) as well as the store itself and were fearful of stockholders and customers being turned off to Best Buy Mobile." Now after the hullabaloo, Best Buy is saying they won't fire Maupin. But the joke's on them--Maupin's taking a leave of absence and thinking about starting a career in graphic design.


• It's not a good time to be Dov Charney right now. The New York Stock Exchange has threatened to de-list American Apparel for failing to file its first two quarterly reports and is facing its third class action suit in two weeks. For a company that could use some time away from the spotlight, unfortunate developments seem to occur every week. Internal documents on employee grooming practices came to light, revealing that American Apparel has an unhealthy obsession with the eyebrows of its employees. This is on top of American Apparel's questionable hiring policies and Dov Charney's well-documented history of sexual harassment suits and other legal woes.


• Another apparel manufacturer notorious for cultivating a distinct image is Abercombie & Fitch. Mike Jeffries, CEO, makes no bones about A&F's discriminatory hiring practices:
  

  "[On the importance of sex and sexual attraction in the A&F customer's "emotional experience"] It's almost everything. That's why we hire good-looking people in our stores. Because good-looking people attract other good-looking people, and we want to market to cool, good-looking people. We don't market to anyone other than that."

  Jeffries probably reconsidered his remarks in light of the many, many lawsuits involving Abercrombie and Fitch's hiring practices, because he pulled his cooperation from the resulting Salon profile two days after the interview without explanation.


• A&F also fired an Muslim employee for wearing a hijab and banished another employee with a prosthetic forearm to working in the stockroom. Hijabs are a point of contention with Disney as well; the happiest place on earth stopped scheduling work for a Muslim employee whose managers forbade her from wearing her own head scarf in her job as a restaurant hostess at Disney's Grand Californian Hotel. Imane Boudlal rejected the company's offer of a bonnet and hat to wear in place of the scarf; she says, "The hat makes a joke of me and my religion, and draws even more attention to me. It's unacceptable...[t]hey don't want me to look Muslim. They just don't want the head covering to look like a hijab."


• Goldman Sachs officially crossed into Big Brother territory by monitoring emails for profanity. But they're not the only ones: One particularly vigorous enforcer is Bloomberg LP, which, the WSJ said, "has monitored e-mails for more than ten years, using an application that scans messages for 70 words and phrases--in English and several other languages--considered profane." Moreover, any "offending Bloomberg employee gets a pop-up message warning him or her not to send the message, which highlights the naughty word." 


• It's not just emails that are being screened; this Ontario, CA policeman (along with his wife and girlfriend) sued the city when his text messages were audited. They claimed his 4th amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, while the city argued that employees had no expectation of privacy when using city computer systems.

Readers, these stories are just what was garnered after a mere skim through the internet and are just the tip of the iceberg. Got any tales of employer policies of your own?  Can they top these? If you think we can handle the truth, sound off in the comments!