|
wateroverfire posted:I can't tell if you're serious. If you haven't figured out that he's exactly the person are bitching about by know then I don't know what to tell you.
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 09:31 |
|
|
HorseLord posted:Not really, in america employers would hire militias to fight gun battles with union workers, and over here in the UK cops and scabs would ram picket lines with armoured busses. Then get their filthy scab bastard houses burnt down. After God had finished the rattlesnake, the toad, the vampire, He had some awful substance left with which He made a scab. A scab is a two-legged animal with a cork-screw soul, a water-logged brain, a combination backbone of jelly and glue. Where others have hearts, he carries a tumor of rotten principles. When a scab comes down the street, men turn their backs and angels weep in heaven, and the Devil shuts the gates of Hell to keep him out. No man has a right to scab so long as there is a pool of water to drown his carcass in, or a rope long enough to hang his body with. Judas Iscariot was a gentleman compared with a scab. For betraying his master, he had character enough to hang himself. A scab has not. Esau sold his birthright for a mess of pottage. Judas Iscariot sold his Savior for thirty pieces of silver. Benedict Arnold sold his country for a promise of a commission in the British Army. The modern strikebreaker sells his birthright, his country, his wife, his children and his fellow men for an unfulfilled promise from his employer, trust or corporation. Esau was a traitor to himself: Judas Iscariot was a traitor to his God; Benedict Arnold was a traitor to his country; a strikebreaker is a traitor to his God, his country, his wife, his family and his class.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:If you haven't figured out that he's exactly the person are bitching about by know then I don't know what to tell you. Maybe too exactly...  I can't wait for sincerity to come back into fashion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Maybe too exactly... It can't, especially not in the workplace. You know why? Because a boss can deliberately ruin somebody's life with no other reasoning than "I felt like it." Employees, thanks to lovely labor protection laws, right to work, a lack of unions, etc. have no choice but to kowtow to the boss in every way they want and live in constant fear of being fired. If millennials seem extra cranky and unhappy it's because they have every loving reason to be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Noctone posted:Call me a petty rear end in a top hat, but someone demanding an apology like that would definitely get them on my poo poo list. Yeah, it's not about bowing down and worshipping at the altar of authority, it's about showing respect for other human beings. Even if it were the other way around, and the boss was demanding a public apology for some minor slight from one of the people he or she managed, it'd be incredibly rude and out of line.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:It can't, especially not in the workplace. He's just going to tell you to shut up you know that right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
There's no reason to expect sincerity. The risk of being exactly who you are is far too great. I was told at length about our flat non hierarchical culture and then found myself expected to dial in on a conference call despite being on the other side of the table (presumably because I'm the new guy? wasn't even my dept). If that's the type of assumptions that people are making for such a ridiculously menial task in a gigantic company, I'm not going to risk much forthrightness until I'm very sure whom I dealing with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:Esau was a traitor to himself: Judas Iscariot was a traitor to his God; Benedict Arnold was a traitor to his country; a strikebreaker is a traitor to his God, his country, his wife, his family and his class. Benedict Arnold was a true and loyal servant of his country, that being the one he was born a member of, the United Kingdom 
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Maybe too exactly... heh wateroverfire posted:According to the article (quoting the CEO) she was let go for poor performance. So IDK, maybe it was that one lovely outburst or maybe she was terrible in general. FWIW I think the correct response to that one incident would have been to make her cry and laugh about it at golf later, but not to fire her until she thought she was clear of it and had begun to feel like she was on firm footing at the office again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
sincerity is going to come back in fashion when you age out of the workforce you bourgeois pig
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
Logan's Run was a utopia
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:sincerity is going to come back in fashion when you age out of the workforce you bourgeois pig Tru Control Volume posted:Logan's Run was a utopia One man's utopia is another's dystopia
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
Oh are we confusing right to work with at-will employment again? That's cool.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 23:22
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:It can't, especially not in the workplace. It's all just, like, capitalism and stuff, maaaaan
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:It's all just, like, capitalism and stuff, maaaaan For the most part yeah. If you are not part of a protected class and are not fired in a situation where there is a public policy or implied contract exception, you're up poo poo creek. And even these protections are not present in every state. FL GA and LA have no exceptions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Oh are we confusing right to work with at-will employment again? That's cool. Where aren't 'right to work' laws just the branding of at-will employment?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
Coolness Averted posted:Where aren't 'right to work' laws just the branding of at-will employment? Not exactly, they're laws that allow workers to not pay for unions dues even when they are protected by a collective bargaining agreement. You get almost all the same perks but don't pay dues, with a few downsides. I know you can't vote, maybe a few other things. Basically incentivizes free riding and quickly causes a death spiral in most cases. So eventually you are left with an at-will workplace, in the long run. Huzzah
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
menino posted:Not exactly, they're laws that allow workers to not pay for unions dues even when they are protected by a collective bargaining agreement. You get almost all the same perks but don't pay dues, with a few downsides. I know you can't vote, maybe a few other things. Yeah I know they're technically different, but it's pretty drat pedantic to say "Ahem, you're confusing right to work with at-will employment!" when they go hand and glove, like "No you're not talking about inner city drug problems, you're talking about inner city crime that is committed in the course of the drug trade or by addicts." Are there any right to work states that aren't employment at will -or vice versa? And are things really so different there than places that have both?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
Right to work and at will employment tend to be pretty closely tied together. In theory that's meant to give more rights to workers. In practice it lets employers get away with firing you for any reason they feel like. They can even get away with stupid poo poo like firing a gay person for being gay but bullshitting some other reason. You can get away with that pretty much as long as you did something other than write "is a human being" on the paperwork and even then you'd have to know that happened, prove it, and take it to court. Not that I've seen that happen. Nope. Never. Nosirree. I've also never had a workplace turn hostile because a manager thought I was gay. Never happened to me. Complaining about it would be communism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Maybe too exactly... I find sincerity still works but you have to know how to approach the situation. After honing the skills of telling someone who can ruin your life they're a loving retard in the army I feel like corporate politics are child's play. (You think bosses can ruin your life, at least in the civilian world you can quit.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
Coolness Averted posted:Yeah I know they're technically different, but it's pretty drat pedantic to say "Ahem, you're confusing right to work with at-will employment!" when they go hand and glove, like "No you're not talking about inner city drug problems, you're talking about inner city crime that is committed in the course of the drug trade or by addicts." All states are at-will in that any worker outside of a CBA is at will. Most states have statutory exclusions which give added protections to their at-will status, although GA FL and LA have zero, besides federal protected class laws. http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/01/art1full.pdf So a state like IL is at will for all workers outside a CBA, like every state. It is 'at will' but not 'right to work', as all workers covered in a CBA have to pay dues in IL. But it also has public policy exception (can't get fired for refusing to break the law) and implied contract exception (something about language in a handbook is the only example I can remember) which are additional protections for workers outside CBAs. These protects firing under certain cases. I don't remember if workers' rights in a CBA are trumped by these exceptions, but I'm pretty sure they would be in like 99% of cases. (If your CBA said it's ok for them to ask you to break the law, pretty sure they can't fire you for refusing, for example) I'm not a lawyer tho and it's been a year since I took Gov Reg, so take this with a grain of salt. E: Workers in a CBA also have some kind of Sherman anti trust thing which dictates if stuff goes to court or private arbitration or something like that too but it was an 8am class. menino fucked around with this message at 00:58 on Mar 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
Coolness Averted posted:Yeah I know they're technically different, but it's pretty drat pedantic to say "Ahem, you're confusing right to work with at-will employment!" when they go hand and glove, like "No you're not talking about inner city drug problems, you're talking about inner city crime that is committed in the course of the drug trade or by addicts." 49 of the 50 states are at-will, IIRC, while only 25 states have right-to-work. The two don't really have anything to do with each other besides both being anti-labor laws. At-will employment is the knife in the heart of each and every worker, while right-to-work is basically just a union-busting law. They're two completely separate problems, and conflating them is a bad idea. Mentioning right-to-work as a threat to tech workers is just plain wrong, since they don't have any unions to bust in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
Ah fair enough every state I've worked in has been both, but yeah a tech worker claiming right-to-work harms them short of "It keeps us from unionizing" is a bit silly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
Coolness Averted posted:Ah fair enough every state I've worked in has been both, but yeah a tech worker claiming right-to-work harms them short of "It keeps us from unionizing" is a bit silly. I mean yeah, it is very very unlikely to do much for software engineers. But in general any group that agitates against the laws represents a net positive for workers, regardless of how specious or misguided their understanding of how it applies to their industry might be. If you can get a bunch of software engineers speaking out against right to work, it could drive awareness. As long as they are not selfish/tone deaf dipshits about it, which is not guaranteed
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
menino posted:As long as they are not selfish/tone deaf dipshits about it, which is not guaranteed Yea I think I see the fatal flaw in this plan now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 06:13
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:49 of the 50 states are at-will, IIRC, while only 25 states have right-to-work. The two don't really have anything to do with each other besides both being anti-labor laws. I get really mad at those anti-labor laws and their accompanying higher unemployment than places without.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 13:06
|
|
|
Coolness Averted posted:Ah fair enough every state I've worked in has been both, but yeah a tech worker claiming right-to-work harms them short of "It keeps us from unionizing" is a bit silly. Considering that tech, at the bottom-mid levels is the industry most in need of unionization I would say it hurts those people a lot Beyond that, in response to: DeusExMachinima posted:Oh are we confusing right to work with at-will employment again? That's cool. In most of the early states that passed "right to work" including the state I live in, At-will employment was included in the same law and is considered hand in hand because they are in fact actually the same loving thing here The Slithery D posted:I get really mad at those anti-labor laws and their accompanying higher unemployment than places without. Yeah, those low unemployment rates come at the cost of earnings and benefits to the point where becoming unemployed in one of these states is far more likely to leave you in a place where you have no savings and no way to continue paying your bills. Employees have no leverage to negotiate for better wages or working conditions. They cannot organize a union or demand a raise because it will end up with them out of a job, and since we've established they don't make enough money to save anything, that will eventually end up with them on the street or being forced to settle for yet another low-paying job. Employment at will is idiotic, it gives employers too much power over their employees in a society where money is everything and the unemployed are doomed to homelessness if they don't become employed again very quickly. Basically what I am saying here is that if you techbros are tired of seeing homeless people cluttering up your streets maybe you should stop taking away the most basic loving protections the working class has against being financially ruined by their employers Mirthless fucked around with this message at 14:27 on Mar 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 14:12
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:Yeah, those low unemployment rates come at the cost of earnings and benefits to the point where becoming unemployed in one of these states is far more likely to leave you in a place where you have no savings and no way to continue paying your bills. According to EPI the difference is like 3% after controlling for regional effects and differences between populations. http://www.epi.org/publication/right-to-work-states-have-lower-wages/ edit: Doesn't every state in the US offer at least 24 weeks of unemployment benefits, with virtually no questions asked, with state/federal extensions available if economic conditions are bad? wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 14:47 on Mar 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:According to EPI the difference is like 3% after controlling for regional effects and differences between populations. Pfft, gently caress no. NC is 19 weeks maximum with a maximum weekly payment of $350. You also have to jump through hoops to get them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:According to EPI the difference is like 3% after controlling for regional effects and differences between populations. Aaaaaaahahahahahaaahahaaaf gently caress no. Every time Republicans gain control of anything they gently caress that up massively. Here in PA you can only get unemployment for specific scenarios. Even the temporary unemployment that was specifically created so seasonal workers could have money in the winter (many, many jobs in these parts vanish when the snow starts falling) you have to go through hell to get. If you get unemployment you are REQUIRED to be actively job hunting and you lose it the instant you get a job offer. Even if it's temporary, seasonal work that pays less than minimum wage. Even if they actually deny you the job in the end. gently caress you, take it, and don't complain.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Aaaaaaahahahahahaaahahaaaf gently caress no. Every time Republicans gain control of anything they gently caress that up massively. Here in PA you can only get unemployment for specific scenarios. PA Unemployment elligibility faq. quote:1. Am I eligible for unemployment benefits? Looks like you have to have worked at least 18 of the 52 weeks prior to your filing a claim and you can't be self employed, have quit, or been fired for cause. That doesn't seem onerous or unreasonable. ToxicSlurpee posted:If you get unemployment you are REQUIRED to be actively job hunting and you lose it the instant you get a job offer. Even if it's temporary, seasonal work that pays less than minimum wage. Even if they actually deny you the job in the end. gently caress you, take it, and don't complain. Work search requirements according to the state of Pennsylvania quote:3. What are the weekly work search requirements? So...you're not forced to take temporary, seasonal work that pays less than minimum wage and you can even work part time in some circumstances. You have to apply for three jobs or apply for two jobs and do a work search activity which could be an online seach ... none of this seems super unreasonable. ToxicSlurpee posted:Even the temporary unemployment that was specifically created so seasonal workers could have money in the winter (many, many jobs in these parts vanish when the snow starts falling) you have to go through hell to get. That sucks. Looks like there is a bill working its way through the PA house to fix how seasonal comp elligibility is calculated - HB319. wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 16:24 on Mar 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:According to EPI the difference is like 3% after controlling for regional effects and differences between populations. 80% of unemployment cases in Oklahoma alone are rejected, I don't know how it is in the rest of the country Also the unreasonable requirement isn't the job searches, it's the keeping an exhaustive record of every contact you made with every recruiter that is also verifiable with contact numbers and email addresses for at least 2 years after you collected unemployment, because they can audit you at any time and make you pay back 100% of the benefit of your unemployment. It's like this in every state. It's very telling that you don't know loving anything about unemployment despite (I assume) working in HR or management and being in charge of Oh and nobody offers unemployment extensions ever since the GOP negotiated out federal unemployment extensions during the budget debates so if you run out of your measly 350 dollar a month payments you're completely hosed Mirthless fucked around with this message at 16:39 on Mar 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:PA Unemployment elligibility faq. It doesn't SEEM super unreasonable but...what if you quit a job because it was a hostile work place or you were being sexually harassed and couldn't get management to do anything about it? Hey good for you, that counts as "quitting" so you don't get unemployment. Look at that list, though; you must not have been self-employed, quit, or gotten fired. Now may I remind you that PA is an at will employment state and your boss doesn't need to lay you off. He can just fire your rear end. Now ask yourself how often people are ACTUALLY eligible for unemployment these days. I'll give you a hint: not very many. Republicans have been chipping away at this poo poo for a while. Now consider also that PA has had one of the worst recoveries since the Great Recession. This in a state that was already being ravaged by Rust Belt issues. Take a wild guess how many people can actually find jobs that pay similarly or have similar work. Also read that more closely; you must apply for jobs. If you can't even find jobs comparable to what you were doing before you must either head on down to the PA Career Link and search, which means applying for jobs (Career Link also has utterly dismal prospects unless you're a nurse or a truck driver) or apply for whatever minimum wage garbage there is. On the surface it sounds fine but this is a state with a dismal situation all around. The biggest, nastiest thing is the at will employment and "you don't get unemployment if you got fired" combination.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
Oh yeah and this poo poo isn't all handled through like some automated online process, you might fill out the forms but some guy in an office is going to process your paperwork and god loving help you if you have an ethnic sounding name or the dude processing your paperwork has a hard-on about bootstraps because they will bend over backwards to deny your loving claimquote:On the surface it sounds fine but this is a state with a dismal situation all around. The biggest, nastiest thing is the at will employment and "you don't get unemployment if you got fired" combination. Yeah, if we are going to live with the at-will employment shenanigans we need to get way past the point where you can be denied unemployment because your boss didn't like your job performance or you missed too much work that time you ended up in the hospital In at-will states the extent of what your employer has to do to block your claim is respond to the notice of the hearing and say "Yep, we fired that guy" ToxicSlurpee posted:Now consider also that PA has had one of the worst recoveries since the Great Recession. This in a state that was already being ravaged by Rust Belt issues. Take a wild guess how many people can actually find jobs that pay similarly or have similar work. Also read that more closely; you must apply for jobs. If you can't even find jobs comparable to what you were doing before you must either head on down to the PA Career Link and search, which means applying for jobs (Career Link also has utterly dismal prospects unless you're a nurse or a truck driver) or apply for whatever minimum wage garbage there is. The last time I was unemployed I was offered a job on the first day I started applying and I had to turn it down and hope nobody ever asked because it was shady as hell and I didn't think taking the job was in my best interests. God help me if I ever get audited and they have to call that guy, I'd be out 7k in unemployment benefits. But if I'd taken that job I could have put myself in a horrible position two months down the line where I would have been unemployed without the benefits. This can screw you over even in states without bad economies. I have health problems but I could lose unemployment for turning down a job without functional employer offered insurance! (we didn't take the medicaid expansion) Mirthless fucked around with this message at 16:49 on Mar 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:Yeah, if we are going to live with the at-will employment shenanigans we need to get way past the point where you can be denied unemployment because your boss didn't like your job performance or you missed too much work that time you ended up in the hospital PA is absolutely loving full of horror stories relating to poo poo like that. I actually had a situation where I spent the night in the E.R. and still had to show up to work 3 hours after I got discharged or risk getting fired. I was able to walk and not currently in the hospital so off to work I went! Then I got poo poo for being sluggish all day because I had gotten maybe two hours of sleep and also just got out of the goddamned emergency room come the gently caress on boss cut me some slack.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:PA is absolutely loving full of horror stories relating to poo poo like that. I actually had a situation where I spent the night in the E.R. and still had to show up to work 3 hours after I got discharged or risk getting fired. I was able to walk and not currently in the hospital so off to work I went! We had a blizzard a few years back that shut down the entire state, people nearly froze to death in their cars trapped in snowbanks on the interstate, we had to have the national guard come in and set up rescue posts and poo poo, Oklahoma was completely unprepared for it. The company I was working for at the time was in the middle of loving nowhere. They must have fired 30 people for not making it into work that week. The governor of the state was on TV telling people "If you get stuck out there, you are on your own" and we put 30 people out of a job for not making it into the office. I bet every one of those unemployment claims was denied too
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:It doesn't SEEM super unreasonable but...what if you quit a job because it was a hostile work place or you were being sexually harassed and couldn't get management to do anything about it? Hey good for you, that counts as "quitting" so you don't get unemployment. "Bullshit whining" when you can legally fire some laborer for - sexual orientation or gender status - breaking a limb and not having vacation time - negative attitude Unfortunately you have to give those strong arming workers a warning before removing their source of income Luckily, you can find tons of neat guides and tricks on the internet! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
A lot of entitled people ITT who think other people owe them money to do nothing because they won't take whatever work is available or try not to piss of their boss or move to another area with better opportunities or just generally accept responsibility for their own lives. Maybe whining about people not feeling sympathetic towards your self pity is not the best way to solve the problem?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
The Slithery D posted:A lot of entitled people ITT who think other people owe them money to do nothing because they won't take whatever work is available or try not to piss of their boss or move to another area with better opportunities or just generally accept responsibility for their own lives. Maybe whining about people not feeling sympathetic towards your self pity is not the best way to solve the problem? lol "try not to piss off your boss" - so simply getting on someone's nerves is a totally rational reason to fire somebody and definitely worth denying them their only source of income I sure would move to another area with better opportunities if it didn't cost 2 grand to get out my apartment and 2 grand to get into another and another 500 dollars to move all my poo poo as it turns out people who make 14 dollars an hour don't have 5 thousand dollars laying around to pack up and move to another state at a moment's notice, who'da thunk it? Twerkteam Pizza posted:"Bullshit whining" when you can legally fire some laborer for Things I've been fired for since moving to Oklahoma - Telling an employee lower on the ladder than me to not transfer calls during busy queue times - Missing two days of work during an ice storm because my car literally couldn't make it up the hill out of our apartment complex due to ice build up - Getting cussed out by my boss (lol, yep) 3/3 denied unemployment Mirthless fucked around with this message at 17:02 on Mar 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 09:31 |
|