I actually had time for a Nuance daydream. - No kidding. I did.

1.  The dream. 

Attorney:

So, _________, Nuance HR person, explain to the court how it is you go about determining whether someone at Nuance is "promoted" to a QC position?

 Attorney:

And in what ways does that differ from the process you utilize to assure the quality of work from the "everyday" MTs?

Attorney:

What standard is utilized as a baseline for the MTs, in terms of accuracy or "correctness". Is it 95%, 98%, 99.5% -- just what is it?

And what standard is utilized as a baseline for the QCs? In terms of accuracy or "correctness". Is it 95%, 98%, 99.5% -- just what is it?

 Attorney:

And this is true whether or not that person is "up" for a promotion to a QC position, already in a QC position, or "just an MT," is this correct?

 Attorney:

So then, as long as a perfected document is presented as promised to the client, does it really matter who produces it?

 Attorney:

And how are Nuance QC people paid?

Attorney:

I see, you said, hourly?...For doing essentially the same job as those that are "stuck" on production-only rates? I mean, you just explained that the same standards of quality apply to both MTs and QCs, so essentially they are doing the same job, isn't that correct?

 Attorney:

And in fact, isn't it true that many times when workloads are low that QCs are encouraged to "do MT work, on production," just like "regular" MTs?

 Attorney:

But does this not significantly limit the number of lines available to the MTs?

 (really no time to answer here, Mr. Attorney just charges on with the following question)

Does this not essentially offer QCs an unfair advantage over the MTs? What? Speak up! You say the QCs also have the additional advantage of CHOOSING which accounts, even which MDs or WTs to transcribe, for instance, the MDs with lengthy templates, or the ones that speak with perfect diction in an easy voice and tone to transcribe? Does this not essentially LIMIT the very employees that are on production-only rates (the lowly MTs), to only the "dregs," the ones with the most difficult accents or the impossibly mush-mouthed MDs that are too busy to even correctly pronounce certain words, let alone speak in sentences that make sense?

 On, and on, and on.

2.  The commentary.

To me, this is akin to placing two people on two different production lines, one that hums right along, making production bonuses possible, while the other line crawls along at such a pace that no bonus is EVER possible, and indeed, places employees at risk of "poor performance").

 Another question for HR: Would a manager in a real factory suggest that one person go sit down so that this other person can earn the money they used to make? Really, in full view of the entire plant, you would do this?  

 HR people at Nuance seem so cocky, so assured they are "doing nothing wrong." I wonder if Nuance attorneys really even understand what the HR people have been subjecting us to? After all, unfair labor practices, as with most other moral, ethical, and legal considerations, really do come in all flavors and tend to be a matter of interpretation, very costly to represent in some cases.  

 I'm not an attorney, of course, but I can sure fantasize. From what I understand civil cases (brought by private attorneys) only require a preponderance of the evidence to be decided on behalf of plaintiffs, unlike criminal cases, which require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil courts are where the punitive damages are awarded too (DOL awards them also).

 Like I said, I can sure fantasize.