|
Why dont you call you landlord and figure out what you two agree on. Then get your landlord to send you a letter with that understanding. The contract is ambiguous on its face.
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 16:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 00:43 |
|
|
My company, which shall remain nameless, recently fired two people. One of them was fired for a legitimate IT security breach. The other was fired because he supposedly knew about that breach but did not report it. He denied such knowledge (and they had no evidence that he knew), but was still fired. Later, he attempted to file for unemployment and my company fought it. Eventually he won because they could not show documentation that he had violated some rule, although that seems immaterial since once again, they had no evidence that he knew what he knew. Coincidentally, right after they lost the fight to deny his unemployment claim, they added this to a document that everyone in my department is required to sign as a condition of continued employment: douche bags posted:"All (department) employees are required to report any activities that may be deemed as inappropriate, unethical or directly against company and/or departmental policies. Examples include unauthorized access to systems and/or accounts; inappropriate sharing of confidential information; inappropriate behaviors by coworkers; etc. If you see or hear of anything that could be considered inappropriate or in violation of company or departmental policies, you are required to report that information to your Manager, Director, or Human Resources." My question is, as the language reads, is it really legal to force your employees to agree to that? They have essentially said that if we want to keep our jobs we have to agree to spy on each other. That just doesn't seem right, and I wonder if it's even legal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 21:18
|
|
|
Powdered Toast Man posted:My question is, as the language reads, is it really legal to force your employees to agree to that? They have essentially said that if we want to keep our jobs we have to agree to spy on each other. That just doesn't seem right, and I wonder if it's even legal. I wouldn't think they would even need to ask. If you see actions that are grossly "inappropriate, unethical or directly against company and/or departmental policies" and do nothing, you are simply a bad employee. This is almost certainly legal in whatever your jurisdiction may be, but feel free to contact a lawyer to make sure.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 21:28
|
|
|
Powdered Toast Man posted:My company, which shall remain nameless, recently fired two people. One of them was fired for a legitimate IT security breach. The other was fired because he supposedly knew about that breach but did not report it. He denied such knowledge (and they had no evidence that he knew), but was still fired. Later, he attempted to file for unemployment and my company fought it. Eventually he won because they could not show documentation that he had violated some rule, although that seems immaterial since once again, they had no evidence that he knew what he knew. Welcome to at-will employment! but, Powdered Toast Man posted:that seems immaterial since once again, they had no evidence that he knew what he knew. I can do a couple better: quote:All vehicles, lockers, containers, brief cases, handbags, and other parcels and personal belongings of employees thus are subject to inspection and search by [company] or it's [sic] designated outside investigators at any time. These procedures are necessary for the safety, health and security of everyone at [company] and the protection of our property and facilities. Submission to and compliance with these rules is a condition of your continued employment. quote:Under no circumstances should a [company] computer be connected to a "bulletin board" or any other outside service that could create an opportunity for a "virus" to be loaded into the computer. quote:Safety glasses should be worn at all times when doing any type of work involving electrical equipment or where there is potential for eye injury.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 21:39
|
|
|
I do in fact live in an at-will state. Which, now that I think about it, probably means they can require whatever the gently caress they want. I may not have been clear on the fact that I firmly believe the only reason they did this is to cover their asses so that if anything like the previous incident ever happens again, they won't have to pay someone's unemployment. They're pretty butthurt about that from what I can tell. I just find this new "policy" to be particularly ridiculous because I'm well aware of ongoing favoritism where certain people are allowed to get away with things whilst other people get nailed, to the point of even sweeping a sexual harassment claim under the rug.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 21:49
|
|
|
Welcome to employment law in America. (From what I can tell your situation seems pretty normal.) Sweeping sexual harassment under the rug is bad though. What happened there?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 21:52
|
|
|
My mom has a trust fund from her parents. I have no idea how much is in it. The bank that has the fund sent her tax paperwork in January via mail, then a week later mailed her a correction letter with the 'correct' paperwork. My mom called and the new paperwork was verified as correct and all good. She took all the paperwork from that and her work in to the tax guy and he filed everything this week. Today we received some overnight mail from that bank again, stating that the paperwork they sent a month or so ago is incorrect and now HERE is the right paperwork for her filing. My mom is pretty loving livid right now, as she called the tax guy and he said everything has been sent out already and there is no way to change anything. She's also pretty upset and worried that the IRS is going to fine her or do some huge audit because of the lack of the proper paperwork for the trust fund (I don't know what needed to be corrected/what was incorrect on the 'correct' paperwork). What is the next step that needs to be taken in order for her not to get hosed over by filing with apparently incorrect information?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 04:12
|
|
|
Did her accountant give any reason why she couldn't just file a 1040X?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 05:20
|
|
|
I think the paperwork we got today mentioned a 1099 or something like that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 05:39
|
|
|
Is there an easy way to recover the cost of having to refile or correct their gently caress up?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 07:34
|
|
|
That I don't know. The tax guy said he's looking into it, but everything has already been sent out. If for some reason it comes down to an audit or fees or whatever, would it be worth it or even possible to legally have the bank/accountant cover it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 13:38
|
|
|
Hey I just came across this thread so I'll throw this one out here for fun. My uncle (whom I wasn't really close to or anything) just passed and left a large estate of 1.5million$, however his will was badly out of date (20 years old at least) and wound up leaving it to a girl who broke up with him over 20 years ago. He died single with no kids so his closest family is my mom and my grandma. They have had no contact since the breakup, and he was in the process of revising the will, and had contacted his lawyer to this effect and discussed it to the point where the lawyer was in the process of drafting a new will but never finalized it. The sentiment is that he did not want to leave his estate to this person. My thoughts are that it would be difficult to challenge the existing will, but it seems like something worth tossing out here. It's worth noting that my mom will most likely actually contact a lawyer. Also this occurred in Canada.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 15:23
|
|
|
Cowslips Warren posted:My mom has a trust fund from her parents. I have no idea how much is in it. The bank that has the fund sent her tax paperwork in January via mail, then a week later mailed her a correction letter with the 'correct' paperwork. My mom called and the new paperwork was verified as correct and all good. She took all the paperwork from that and her work in to the tax guy and he filed everything this week. What was the nature of the correction? It is possible that the correction won't affect your mom's tax filing. Also, she can easily amend her tax return, so she must have misunderstood her tax guy's response. The tax goons over in the tax thread can probably answer any questions about amending. From a legal standpoint, if the trustee provides incorrect tax information to a beneficiary, and this leads to an incorrect tax return, and this leads to an audit or penalty, the beneficiary can almost certainly get reimbursement from the trustee for any tax penalties, etc. Trustees are held to one of the highest standards in law, and a trustee's failure to provide necessary tax information in a timely fashion is probably going to be actionable. However, we don't know what's in the trust, and trustees sometimes receive late tax information from companies in which the trustees have invested, so the late correction may not be the trustee's fault.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 16:20
|
|
|
CADPAT posted:Hey I just came across this thread so I'll throw this one out here for fun. Disclaimer: I have no idea how things work in Canada. Was your uncle ever married to the girl? In my state, if you are married and draft a will leaving everything to your spouse, then divorcing your spouse will invalidate provisions in your will leaving stuff to the spouse. But if your uncle was never married to her, then I would initially guess that the will remains valid. Of course, in the real world, your mom would sue and try to wrangle some cash out of the estate via settlement. Also, who knows - maybe the will wasn't properly executed and is invalid on its face.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 16:24
|
|
|
CADPAT posted:Hey I just came across this thread so I'll throw this one out here for fun. Were they married? Also I have no idea about anything about Canadian law. edit Haha, me and Entris go or the same first question.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 16:24
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Were they married?  It's really the only way that I can see attacking the will, aside from traditional incapacity or undue influence actions, which are gonna be pretty tough when the will is 20 years old.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 16:28
|
|
|
No, they were never married. Just dating.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 16:29
|
|
|
entris posted:
That's pretty much how I saw it. I mean at the end of the day regardless of how "unfair" it may seem this was the last official written record of how he wanted his estate divided. Regardless of the situation NOW, with him gone it would be impossible to prove without a shadow of a doubt that this is not what he wanted. The fact that he spoke with a lawyer about revising it might be an indicator, but at the end of the day if he didn't follow through one can infer that he wasn't serious about it. Sucks but them's the breaks. I was just curious what someone else might have to say about it. Thanks for the comments!
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 16:55
|
|
|
In the USA you would most likely be up poo poo's creek without a paddle. Who knows in Canada though. edit In the USA, Wills can generally be challenged by parties in interest for fraud, undue influence, lack of mental capacity, or improper execution. euphronius fucked around with this message at 17:02 on Mar 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 16:58
|
|
|
CADPAT posted:Hey I just came across this thread so I'll throw this one out here for fun. This is provincial jurisdiction. What province are you in?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 17:26
|
|
|
He lived in Nova Scotia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 17:28
|
|
|
CADPAT posted:That's pretty much how I saw it. I mean at the end of the day regardless of how "unfair" it may seem this was the last official written record of how he wanted his estate divided. Regardless of the situation NOW, with him gone it would be impossible to prove without a shadow of a doubt that this is not what he wanted. The fact that he spoke with a lawyer about revising it might be an indicator, but at the end of the day if he didn't follow through one can infer that he wasn't serious about it. (Not a lawyer, this isnt legal advice, but I have anecdotal evidence for this one) If your mom lawyers up, she'll see something. I'm in B.C. and when my grandfather on my fathers side died, he left my dad a dollar. My dad fought this and rightfully got his half of the estate (2 kids) I recall the lawyer was not cheap at all, but when the smoke cleared dad had more than a dollar.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 17:34
|
|
|
I don't know Nova Scotian law - I'm a law student in Ontario - so I wanted to check whether there was anything strange in their Wills Act. Basically echoing what everyone has said, the Nova Scotia Wills Act is pretty clear.Nova Scotia Wills Act posted:
If you can get the will struck down as invalid for some other reason, then you'd be much better off, but otherwise you're probably out of luck. Obviously get a Nova Scotian lawyer to look into this. You're going to want to check whether the will has been probated yet and an executor appointed. Like I said, I'm not a lawyer, I'm a law student. I'm certainly not your lawyer and this is not legal advice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 18:20
|
|
|
CADPAT posted:Hey I just came across this thread so I'll throw this one out here for fun. Just contact a lawyer, you're not going to get anything helpful here. Apparently only BC has a Wills Variation Act, but I imagine there has to be some common law presumptions along the same lines
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 18:29
|
|
|
hypocrite lecteur posted:Just contact a lawyer, you're not going to get anything helpful here. Apparently only BC has a Wills Variation Act, but I imagine there has to be some common law presumptions along the same lines Well like I said, it's not even my choice. I just wanted to generate some discussion and hear what people would say.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 18:57
|
|
|
I hosed up big time. I received a DWI with an open container in the back of my car. Went to jail and paid the bond. What are my options not to get so hosed? My main concern is not the money but the driving records as it can seriously harm my current career path. I refused the breathalizer by asking for a blood test but they did not want to take me to the hospital. I am trying to consult lawyers, however I am a bit scared here in texas I can get assraped and get fired if this stays in my record.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 19:43
|
|
|
GET A LAWYER NOW. You have 15 days from arrest to request a hearing to keep your driver's license. This is a separate process from the criminal DWI case. You have to get a lawyer who does both DPS hearings and DWI cases. If this is your first, you can probably keep it off your record one way or another, but you need to get an attorney as soon as possible. Where are you in TX?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 19:56
|
|
|
kriminal posted:I hosed up big time. If you're in Dallas, I can recommend a good guy. (It's not me, I promise!)
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 22:08
|
|
|
How's that work if you refuse a breathalyzer and demand a blood test? You're arrested, car impounded, etc? Are they even allowed to e: refuse to conduct a blood test?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2012 00:57
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:How's that work if you refuse a breathalyzer and demand a blood test? You're arrested, car impounded, etc? Are they even allowed to e: refuse to conduct a blood test? Which state
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2012 01:43
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:How's that work if you refuse a breathalyzer and demand a blood test? You're arrested, car impounded, etc? Are they even allowed to e: refuse to conduct a blood test? You also need to define breathalyer. A PBT (the handheld unit) is way different than the EBT (a larger, more accurate unit at the station/jail). In California, you can always refuse the PBT. If the officer has PC otherwise, he will impound your car, arrest you, etc. If not, he must release you. To be honest, if you're getting a PBT, you're going to jail unless you blow below .05 (not not .08). And if the cop didn't gently caress up the FSTs, you have over a .05. In California, you are legally allowed a choice between breath or blood, unless one is not available (then they can force either). If you choose breath, you must be allow to do a blood draw afterwards (you'll have to pay to test it). I almost always recommend breath because it has more errors, which means more defenses. Plus that blood sample is there for backup. Also, if you do have drugs in your system they did not previously suspect, those will show up in a blood test. This is for alcohol DUIs. For drug, it is a bit different. A refusal to provide any sample gets you a nasty jury instruction and in california, they can force a blood draw and probably will. Every single state is different. In Minnesota, a refusal is a separate crime that is more serious than a DUI. You cannot chose a test, but if you have a "technical refusal" (breath machine says you're not blowing hard enough), you can demand a blood test.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2012 05:57
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:How's that work if you refuse a breathalyzer and demand a blood test? You're arrested, car impounded, etc? Are they even allowed to e: refuse to conduct a blood test? For a Canadian perspective, the officer must first have probable cause to believe that you have consumed alcohol. Most common PC? "Have you been drinking tonight son?" "Well, only one beer sir". Bam, breathalized. STFU next time. You then must blow into the handheld unit. Refusing will result in a criminal charge for refusing to blow, which is pretty much an open and shut conviction. However, the handheld units are not considered reliable enough to be used in court, so if you blow over 0.08 they're going to take you to the police station. You will get your phone call. Use it. Ask your lawyer to read you the criminal code, page by page, including annotation, and pray you have an efficient liver. If the cops force you off the phone you have a potential charter breach. Make it clear that you weren't finished consulting with counsel. Eventually you'll need to blow into the real machine. Pray. The new twist in Alberta is that if you blow 0.05 or greater on a handheld device you can be charged on the spot under provincial legislation, rather than federally, and hit with a license suspension, fine, and impoundment. But wait, Schitzo, didn't you just say the handheld units are too unreliable to use in court? Yup, but that's not going to stop the province. I personally have no experience, but rumour is that if you blow a 0.09 or 0.10, the cops will just hit you with the provincial charge rather than drag you to the station and hope you don't sober up in the interim. So pro: no record. Con: no car for a while. Penguins, can you confirm that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2012 10:22
|
|
|
Schitzo posted:You will get your phone call. Use it. Ask your lawyer to read you the criminal code, page by page, including annotation, and pray you have an efficient liver. If the cops force you off the phone you have a potential charter breach. Make it clear that you weren't finished consulting with counsel. Eventually you'll need to blow into the real machine. Pray. Another way it varies state by state (and country by country).
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2012 11:04
|
|
|
Depending on when you had your last drink wouldn't taking the test earlier be beneficial?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2012 13:55
|
|
|
nm posted:In California you don't get a lawyer phone call before the blow. In Minnesota, you do (but it is time limited). In IL refusing a breathalyzer results in a statutory license suspension independent of a DUI conviction. It can be reversed as I understand it, but I forget under which circumstances. I think it has to wait for adjudication of the DUI. Also, I forget if the statutory suspension comes in for the PBT or the actual breathalyzer at the station. Basically, don't put yourself in a position where you'd need to refuse a breathalyzer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2012 18:23
|
|
|
In many states refusing a breathalyzer can result in a suspension. Usually you are still eligible for a hardship license though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2012 19:18
|
|
|
joat mon posted:GET A LAWYER NOW. CaptainScraps posted:If you're in Dallas, I can recommend a good guy. (It's not me, I promise!) NancyPants posted:How's that work if you refuse a breathalyzer and demand a blood test? You're arrested, car impounded, etc? Are they even allowed to e: refuse to conduct a blood test? Thanks I already spoke with a lawyer and will proceed for the hearing before the 15 days since the arrest. This is my first offense. EDITED I refused the breathalyzer at the jail which is a big machine as I have heard it is not so accurate. I offered them to take a blood test but they did not want to take me to the hospital. EDITED Godamit if your eyes start to close even a little bit please do not drive . Stop and get a redbull. I may get fired / loose my visa status for this incident. kriminal fucked around with this message at 23:24 on Mar 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2012 21:57
|
|
|
You really, really shouldn't post anything after that first line.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2012 22:26
|
|
|
Then you have a decent lawyer. If you see a very cute albino-ish girl prosecuting, I went to lawschool with her! Haaaay. G-Mawwwwwww fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Mar 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2012 22:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 00:43 |
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:Then you have a decent lawyer. Unless you know who this person is, ex-prosecutor doesn't always mean decent lawyer. (It doesn't mean bad lawyer either.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2012 22:46
|
|