Elizabeth Benassi was 18 years old, three months into her first professional job, and trying hard not to stand out. She had even quietly asked her manager not to mention her age to coworkers, worried they’d write her off as the kid of the group.

The manager told them anyway, at a bowling alley team-building night.

That detail didn’t make it into the headline-grabbing part of Benassi’s story, but it sets the scene for everything that followed. Benassi had joined Maximus UK Services in August 2022, a firm that works with the UK’s Department for Work and Pensions to help people back into employment. Her colleagues were mostly in their early twenties. She was the youngest by a noticeable margin, and she felt it.

Office, workers, open office
Employees working in open office. Photo credit: Canva

Then came the trainers incident. One morning, Benassi wore athletic shoes to the office, unaware the company had a dress code against them. Her manager, Ishrat Ashraf, called her out on it immediately. Benassi apologized. But as she looked around the room, she noticed something: other colleagues were wearing the same style of shoes. No one had said a word to them.

She sent Ashraf a measured email. “This morning you mentioned that I am not allowed to wear trainers to work,” she wrote, as reported by The Metro. “Despite not being aware of this, as I have never worn trainers to work before, I apologized for this, and you rolled your eyes. I have now realized that I am not the only one wearing trainers today, and I have not seen anyone receive the same chat that I have.”

The email made things worse. Ashraf escalated it to the operations manager, who emailed Benassi to say her footwear was “totally unacceptable.” A month later, she was called into a probationary review meeting and dismissed. The company cited her performance, conduct, attendance, timekeeping, and the dress code violation. Benassi pushed back, filing a legal case for victimisation and age-related harassment.

@andyyjiang

i bet they regret this now 🤦‍♂️ ♬ original sound – Andy Jiang

The case was heard at an employment tribunal in Croydon, south London. The tribunal dismissed the age harassment claim, but it upheld the victimisation finding, and the picture it painted of Benassi’s time at the company was pointed. Employment Judge Forwell noted that no allowance had been made for the fact that she was new and might not have known about the dress code, and concluded the treatment showed “a desire to find fault” with her from the start. As HR Magazine reported, the judge observed that Benassi was “literally being scrutinised from the moment of her arrival.”

The company’s explanation for why other employees weren’t pulled up over their trainers, that one colleague had a sore foot, was also rejected. The judge noted that if that were true, Ashraf would have mentioned it at the time.

Benassi was awarded £29,187 in compensation (around $37,800 in US dollars). In her testimony, she described what she had been trying to avoid all along. “I didn’t want to be treated differently, or as I had put it, ‘as the baby of the group,’” she told the tribunal. The ruling suggests that’s exactly how she was treated anyway.

This article originally appeared earlier this year.

  • A farmer caught a person dumping 421 tires on his land and his response is legendary
    (L) A pile of tires; (R) A farmer walks his landPhoto credit: Canva
    ,

    A farmer caught a person dumping 421 tires on his land and his response is legendary

    After years of his land being treated like a junkyard, Stuart Baldwin decided it was time to send a very large, rubbery message.

    Living on a farm often means dealing with the beauty of nature, but for Stuart Baldwin, a livestock farmer in Haydock, it also meant dealing with the mess left behind by others. Baldwin says about 25 times a year his land is targeted by “fly-tippers,” people who illegally dump trash on private property. As the Manchester Evening News reported, the situation recently reached a breaking point when Baldwin discovered a staggering 421 tires scattered across his fields.

    Instead of just cleaning up the mess and footing the bill, Baldwin decided to check the CCTV cameras he had recently installed. The footage clearly showed a van arriving at the property and unloading the massive haul of rubber.

    Baldwin didn’t immediately call the authorities or retaliate. In a move that reflects a very grounded sense of fairness, he tracked the man down and gave him a chance to make it right. He offered the man a few days to return and clear the field himself.

    When the deadline passed and the tires remained, Baldwin decided that if the man wouldn’t come to the tires, the tires would go to the man. Utilizing a truck from his family’s recycling business, Baldwin and a group of volunteers loaded every single one of the 421 tires and drove them straight to the address associated with the van. As The Daily Mail reported, they carefully unloaded the entire pile into the man’s front garden, ensuring no property was damaged in the process.

    This wasn’t just about a “petty” dispute. Illegal dumping is a massive problem that places a heavy financial and emotional burden on farmers. According to official government data from the UK, authorities dealt with over 1.2 million fly-tipping incidents in the last year alone. Baldwin’s daughter, Megan, told reporters that the family simply wanted to prove a point about respect and accountability. They wanted to show that a farmer’s land is a livelihood, not a convenient trash can.

    The community response has been overwhelmingly supportive. Baldwin noted that people have even approached him on the street to thank him for standing up for the neighborhood. While he joked that the culprit was likely feeling “deflated” after the delivery, the message was serious. By returning the waste to its source, Baldwin turned a frustrating violation of his property into a legendary lesson in personal responsibility.

    This article originally appeared earlier this year.

  • This  hand-written Walmart note about employee hours is a real head-scratcher
    A note from a Walmart manager to the employteesPhoto credit: u/Grizzlypupper / Reddit

    A handwritten notice posted at a Walmart store has gone viral, and the more people read it, the more complicated the conversation got.

    The sign, photographed and shared to r/walmart by user u/grizzlypupper in April 2024, begins plainly enough: “Attention all associates. Everyone needs to only work as many hours as they are scheduled. (If you are scheduled 5 hours do not go over that.)” So far, standard retail stuff. But the notice then lists six employees by name and tells each of them to leave early to compensate for a few minutes they’d already worked over their scheduled shifts the day before. One worker was told to clock out ten minutes early. Several others were directed to shave off five minutes.

    The response on social media was immediate. Some workers defended the practice as straightforward scheduling management, arguing that staying over even a few minutes without authorization creates payroll headaches. Others found the optics jarring, given that most of the workers named had gone over by less than fifteen minutes, seemingly out of dedication rather than negligence.

    Walmart, workers rights, overtime, labor laws, workplace
    A note from the manager to the employees. Photo Credit: @Grizzlyupper/Reddit

    But the comment that drew the most attention came from someone who identified themselves as a current Walmart employee, as reported by Distractify in their coverage of the post. According to that commenter, the notice may actually violate Walmart’s own corporate policy. “Associates can report it to the wage and hour hotline,” they wrote, “and I’m pretty sure they will have to pay out the OT. I know for such a petty amount like this it won’t make a difference on your paycheck, but it’s about the principle.”

    Walmart’s own ethics page states explicitly that the company is “committed to complying fully with all applicable laws and regulations dealing with wage and hour issues, including off-the-clock work” and overtime pay. Whether a store-level manager directing employees to offset previously worked minutes crosses that line is a question workers would need to raise through official channels.

    It’s not the first time Walmart has faced scrutiny over hour management. As Market Realist noted in covering the story, the Pechman Law Group has documented at least two separate lawsuits from former Walmart employees alleging the company skimped on overtime pay, in one case by allegedly adjusting time clock records manually to avoid paying the time-and-a-half rate that kicks in over 40 hours.

    Walmart, workers rights, overtime, labor laws, workplace
    A cashier takes payment from a customer. Photo credit: Canva

    Walmart has not commented publicly on the specific notice. The store location was not identified in the Reddit post.

    For many workers in the comments, the frustration wasn’t about the policy itself but the execution. “When they cut our hours, it’s like one or a half an hour each day,” wrote u/Wooden_Tomato919. “Just give me a whole half day off. But that would benefit me, not them.” Another user, u/JediFed, offered a manager’s perspective: “If I need another 10 minutes to clean everything up, I should take that 10 minutes and clean everything up.”

    A notice meant to manage labor costs ended up raising a question that goes a bit further than scheduling: if an employee works the time, are they owed the pay? Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, for most hourly workers, the answer is yes.

    This article originally appeared last year.

  • Martin Luther King Jr. was ahead of his time in pushing for universal basic income
    Martin Luther King Jr. became involved not just in fights over racial equality but also economic hardship.Photo credit: Ted S. Warren/AP
    , , , ,

    Martin Luther King Jr. was ahead of his time in pushing for universal basic income

    He believed UBI could go a long way toward helping those oppressed by unjust systems.

    Each year on the holiday that bears his name, Martin Luther King Jr. is remembered for his immense contributions to the struggle for racial equality. What is less often remembered but equally important is that King saw the fight for racial equality as deeply intertwined with economic justice.

    To address inequality – and out of growing concern for how automation might displace workers – King became an early advocate for universal basic income. Under universal basic income, the government provides direct cash payments to all citizens to help them afford life’s expenses.

    In recent years, more than a dozen U.S. cities have run universal basic income programs, often smaller or pilot programs that have offered guaranteed basic incomes to select groups of needy residents. As political scientists, we have followed these experiments closely.

    One of us recently co-authored a study which found that universal basic income is generally popular. In two out of three surveys analyzed, majorities of white Americans supported a universal basic income proposal. Support is particularly high among those with low incomes.

    King’s intuition was that white people with lower incomes would support this type of policy because they could also benefit from it. In 1967, King argued, “It seems to me that the Civil Rights Movement must now begin to organize for the guaranteed annual income … which I believe will go a long, long way toward dealing with the Negro’s economic problem and the economic problem with many other poor people confronting our nation.”

    But there is one notable group that does not support universal basic income: those with higher levels of racial resentment. Racial resentment is a scale that social scientists have used to describe and measure anti-Black prejudice since the 1980s.

    Economic self-interest can trump resentment

    At the same time, the results of the study also suggest that coalition building is possible, even among the racially resentful.

    Economic status matters. Racially resentful whites with lower incomes tend to be supportive of universal basic income. In short, self-interest seems to trump racial resentment. This is consistent with King’s idea of how an economic coalition could be built and pave the way toward racial progress.

    Race, Income, Safety net, Martin Luther King Day, Universal basic income (UBI), Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK), Affordability
    As mayor of Stockton, Calif., Michael Tubbs ran a pioneering program that provided a basic income to a limited number of residents. Rich Pedroncelli/AP

    Income is not the only thing that shapes attitudes, however. Some of the strongest supporters of universal basic income are those who have higher incomes but low levels of racial resentment. This suggests an opportunity to build coalitions across economic lines, something King believed was necessary. “The rich must not ignore the poor,” he argued in his Nobel Peace Prize lecture, “because both rich and poor are tied in a single garment of destiny.” Our data shows that this is possible.

    This approach to coalition building is also suggested by our earlier research. Using American National Election Studies surveys from 2004-2016, we found that for white Americans, racial resentment predicted lower support for social welfare policies. But we also found that economic position mattered, too.

    Economic need can unite white Americans in support of more generous welfare policies, including among some who are racially prejudiced. At a minimum, this suggests that racial resentment does not necessarily prevent white Americans from supporting policies that would also benefit Black Americans.

    Building lasting coalitions

    During his career as an activist in the 1950s and 1960s, King struggled with building long-term, multiracial coalitions. He understood that many forms of racial prejudice could undermine his work. He therefore sought strategies that could forge alliances across lines of difference. He helped build coalitions of poor and working-class Americans, including those who are white. He was not so naive as to think that shared economic progress would eliminate racial prejudice, but he saw it as a place to start.

    Guaranteed income, Social programs, Universal basic income
    Martin Luther King Jr. believed Americans of different racial backgrounds could coalesce around shared economic interests. AP

    Currently, the nation faces an affordability crisis, and artificial intelligence poses new threats to jobs. These factors have increased calls for universal basic income.

    Racial prejudice continues to fuel opposition to universal basic income, as well as other forms of social welfare. But our research suggests that this is not insurmountable.

    As King knew, progress toward economic equality is not inevitable. But, as his legacy reminds us, progress does remain possible through organizing around shared interests.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

Explore More Society Stories

Society

This hand-written Walmart note about employee hours is a real head-scratcher

Justice

Martin Luther King Jr. was ahead of his time in pushing for universal basic income

Civic Life

17 everyday things we do now that the future will find utterly bizarre

Work

Career strategist says if your boss says any of these 3 things, you should quit your job