I noticed something funny today where a lot of people were disputing some labor laws for a company where from what I gather officially they wrote down that people got meal breaks at a certain time when in reality people were arguing they weren’t even told to treat the time as a break. Therefore most people worked straight for long hours to the point where you could argue it was borderline illegal for the company to do that.
The crazy thing was how the company defended itself claiming they implied it to people and if they didn’t take a break then it’s too bad in a sense. That was interesting as I was thinking when it comes to stuff like that it is a company’s responsibility to make sure people get say the break otherwise they would be held liable. The main point that piqued my interest here though was that when one person mentioned it they kind of swayed it off. When a couple of people joined in then they started to worry.
It made me think how if you want to investigate a company’s business practice it is better to gather a lot of people as opposed to being a lone wolf of sorts. Because people on the outside can only rely on what they see on paper as the facts. But when a bunch of others start showing how something isn’t right that is when you can get an effective investigation of sorts. Why do it alone when you have the help of others as well in these cases?