Re: Tech Writer Lawsuit; STC position

["Gene Kim-Eng" <techwr -at- genek -dot- com>]

There are two separate issues at hand.

One is the actual pending lawsuit.  STC is correct to not take a position on 
this matter when its details have not been argued and all there is to go on is a 
plaintiff's claims and the company's press statement in response.  Without full 
details it is impossible to determine if this is a case of an underperforming 
writer who couldn't adapt to a new employer's company culture or a company that 
violated the labor code even for a properly classified exempt employee.

The other is whether technical writers are exempt profesionals who do work of an 
"intellectual and varied" nature that requires "advanced and specialized 
knowledge" and who regularly exercise "discretion and independent judgement," or 
are nonexempt hourly workers with "general education" who perform work that is 
"routine, repetitive, or manual" under "direct supervison and guidance."  The 
"National Writers Union," a group with some 1600 nationwide members that do not 
appear to be predominantly technical writers, has not been bashful at all about 
arguing that we are the latter *and* about getting their point of view codified 
into California labor codes, at least for "computer software writers."  For an 
organization that is supposedly *devoted* to technical specialists, whether 
they're called writers, communicators or something else, to not at least poll 
its members to determine the preference of the majority as to what status the 
prefer to hold and what they believe constitutes "protecting" them and advocate 
corresponding positions on laws related to this, "gutless" seems to me to be a 
perfect description.

Gene Kim-Eng



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Donald H. White" <dwhite -at- jrtcllc -dot- com>
To: "'TECHWR-L'" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 6:41 AM
Subject: RE: Tech Writer Lawsuit; STC position


> It doesn't surprise me that the attorney for STC advised the Society leaders
> to be completely silent on the matter, up to and including refusal to
> provide names of Society members as potential interviewees.
>
> Still, overall, it's gutless.
>
> It's gutless to not make a decision, instead holding to the reason that
> someone else advised them not to say anything. The Society is not a party to
> the suit and shouldn't become one, I guess.
>
> Why would a professional association research an issue that could affect
> practitioners of that profession? If a law that protects a significant
> number of professionals is not followed by employers, why would the Society
> go out on a limb to support the law?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Create HTML or Microsoft Word content and convert to Help file formats or 
printed documentation. Features include support for Windows Vista & 2007 
Microsoft Office, team authoring, plus more.
http://www.DocToHelp.com/TechwrlList

True single source, conditional content, PDF export, modular help.
Help & Manual is the most powerful authoring tool for technical
documentation. Boost your productivity! http://www.helpandmanual.com

---
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- 

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
techwr-l-unsubscribe -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
or visit http://lists.techwr-l.com/mailman/options/techwr-l/archive%40web.techwr-l.com


To subscribe, send a blank email to techwr-l-join -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com

Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-  Visit
http://www.techwr-l.com/ for more resources and info.