When you read this definition of “Employment at Will” do you see any means for either party change the written agreement that both parties signed?

This policy states that employment with Serco is at will, meaning employment is voluntary and subject to termination by the employee or Serco at any time and for any reason not prohibited by law. Nothing in these policies shall be interpreted to be in conflict with or to eliminate or modify in any way the employment at-will status of Serco employees. This policy may not be fully applicable in all states in which Serco does business. This policy may not be modified by any officer or employee and shall not be modified in any publication or document. The only exception to this policy is a valid, written employment agreement approved by the CEO, Chief of Staff and/or Senior Vice President of HR.

Yet after Serco was re-awarded the contract I met with my supervisor after he expressed a desired to renegotiate my salary.  He started by asking what my desired salary was and I told him my current salary.  He said he could not do that.  I asked what he proposed.  His figure was about half that.  When I asked what kind of paperwork Serco was going to provide to terminate our relationship he responded Serco was not going to terminate our relationship.  I responded then you are going to pay our agreed upon salary.  The conversation ended there. 

Serco and I had a history of negotiating salaries.  Serco and I had an established history at that salary.  Serco had the means to pay the negotiated salary.  Serco and I had a written agreement.  Serco had specifically defined at will employment and that definition did not include the ability for one party or the other to unilaterally change a negotiated and written agreement.  Serco had every right to fire me if they did not want to pay the salary they agreed to pay in writing.  Serco did not fire me and specifically said they had no intention of terminating our employment relationship.  Serco accepted my work knowing my compensation rate was $100,000 a year.  In fact, Serco never formally advised me they were going to change my pay until two pay periods after they started doing it.

Somehow the Appellate Court wrote 40 pages of words without addressing one of these points. 

Whether you are disappointed that judges legislate from the bench, favor big money over justice or you find some decisions devoid of logic, we know the two things that will solve these issues. 

1 - Inspire competitive races even when there is an incumbent judge and

2 - replace lawyer logic with logic from professions with a track record of building, healing and solving. 

Help implement the solution.

 

This was the first formal notice of a salary change

Serco Letter
This was my response -  Note I made clear Serco knew the cost of my services and I never worked a minute without that being fully understood. 
Rejection of Serco's Proposed Change

 

Related articles

Lawyers Colluding to stop democracy

Lawyer Lies

Lawyer Logic