I fully understand why this is considered unethical. I fully understand that employees will get fired for taking the bounties.
But what actual law is being broken here? I suspect it is legally a bribe, because it is facilitating a non-routine action. But only because of that non-routine bit. Would it be possible to prosecute this, going into court and admitting that your suspension appeals process is non-routine?
And what part of a standard employment contract is being broken here? Taking money to perform a service your employer does not offer? And interestingly, if the employer does offer the service, then it is no longer a bribe but a legal facilitation payment (so you would want a clause in the employment contract to prevent this)
(Not rhetorical - looking for answers to the above questions)
In many ways, this process already happens, and even expected by all concerned. More than once I've seen twitter personality manages to get some decision reversed seemingly only because they could make enough noise, often ending up on the front page here. The difference is in the currency used to pay to bypass the system.
There is a simple fix. Just make the amount a contribution to a charity or charity's of their choice. Makes it a much harder to fire someone who is earning money for a charity, perhaps even one the company contributes to annually.
> But what actual law is being broken here? I suspect it is legally a bribe
It's called "commercial bribery", though I believe state law generally covers this sort of thing, so things will differ depending on jurisdiction. Someone else posted[0] the text of the law for California. (In CA's case, if the amount is under $250, the law doesn't apply, but there are quite a few "bounties" on OP's site that are above that level.)
> And what part of a standard employment contract is being broken here?
I'm not sure if it's standard, but many employees have signed things that say they won't accept other employment. Not sure something like this would count as "employment". But I also wouldn't be surprised if some employment contracts have broader language around this, more to the effect of "no outside paid work".
My employment contracts have all required at minimum that I inform them of any commercial work I am doing outside my employment for them, and sometimes required that I get approval from them before beginning. Having some undisclosed second employment would definitely be grounds for firing, if they wanted.
Apropos of all the valid concerns with this, I don't think "being asked by someone outside the company to do something at the company you currently work for" would ever be described as "undisclosed second employment".
I asked two questions specifically because a clause like this in an employment contract is there to enable termination no matter if the act is legal or not. Also, breaking your employment contract can make you liable for damages if the employer can demonstrate them.
But what actual law is being broken here? I suspect it is legally a bribe, because it is facilitating a non-routine action. But only because of that non-routine bit. Would it be possible to prosecute this, going into court and admitting that your suspension appeals process is non-routine?
And what part of a standard employment contract is being broken here? Taking money to perform a service your employer does not offer? And interestingly, if the employer does offer the service, then it is no longer a bribe but a legal facilitation payment (so you would want a clause in the employment contract to prevent this)
(Not rhetorical - looking for answers to the above questions)
In many ways, this process already happens, and even expected by all concerned. More than once I've seen twitter personality manages to get some decision reversed seemingly only because they could make enough noise, often ending up on the front page here. The difference is in the currency used to pay to bypass the system.