|
If Montana isnt at-will, how exactly does hire/fire work?
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 01:28 |
|
|
twice burned ice posted:This drives me nuts. NPR is loving awful about it. Interviewers often present counter-factuals or different points of view to get the interviewer to expound on their viewpoint. I think the leftward viewpoint is strong enough to withstand questioning in that manner. We need to encourage journalists to do this more, to both people on the left and the right, not less. When journalists don't do it, that's an echo chamber.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
 A conservative as hell relative of mine shared this on facebook. Good god, this country is so ready for universal healthcare. If only fox news hadn't convinced everyone that universal healthcare will bring about 1000 years of communist darkness. Democrazy posted:Interviewers often present counter-factuals or different points of view to get the interviewer to expound on their viewpoint. I think the leftward viewpoint is strong enough to withstand questioning in that manner. No, we don't need journalists to present these things as normal. Sorry, but you're just never going to get me to agree with that. He could have asked "This is unlike rhetoric we've heard from previous presidents. Is it more likely to work than traditional diplomacy?" and accomplished the same goal and gotten the same answer from the interviewee. twice burned ice fucked around with this message at 16:55 on Sep 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Thanks, Trots. Man, forcing unions to provide their services to every employee regardless of dues status is pretty loving cynical. It's literally just a way to kill unions. There's nothing else to it from a policy perspective, even though it's generally sold as a matter of "fairness" or "choice." The messaging in favor of it is good enough that Democrats and many leftist organizations in general are too scared to seriously challenge the concept, even though it's something that should be pushed back against vigorously.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:It's literally just a way to kill unions. There's nothing else to it from a policy perspective, even though it's generally sold as a matter of "fairness" or "choice." The messaging in favor of it is good enough that Democrats and many leftist organizations in general are too scared to seriously challenge the concept, even though it's something that should be pushed back against vigorously. dems hate unions too, they're full of icky poor people
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:At-will Employment = You can quit employment at any time with no penalty and your employer can fire you for any reason that is not against state/federal employment law. Of course this intentionally ignores that both getting fired without reason and quitting without advanced notice are both black marks on the employee, not the employer. (The 'law' that is, not Leon)
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:If Montana isnt at-will, how exactly does hire/fire work? hiring works like anywhere in the US. the difference is the Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act. after a probation period (usually 6mo), you can only terminate employees for good cause. what constitutes "good cause" is most of WDEA; the short version is the employer has to show that the employee violated listed written rules.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
Equifax customer service outreach continues to go well: https://twitter.com/thesquashSH/status/910512164938665984
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:If Montana isnt at-will, how exactly does hire/fire work? You can be fired for any reason within 6 months of your hire date. After your probationary period is over, then you can only be fired for cause. Cause includes: Budgetary/Financial reasons, poor performance, or other "legitimate businesses reasons." When an employee is fired, they are provided with the reason for the firing and if the employer contests their unemployment claim or if the employee contests the firing, then the employer has to provide documentation showing that their reasons meet the standard for cause.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:We need to brainstorm a scarier and more accurate name for what is currently called "Right to Work" and a better name for whatever the alternative is because I don't even know it. Union Busting already exists
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:Click this for hot reddit action and South Dakota rendering itself even more uninhabitable. I've been looking to find more information on what South Dakota may be doing with this and other than this somewhat questionable Reddit post I haven't found anything else. Anyone else have any luck?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:We need to brainstorm a scarier and more accurate name for what is currently called "Right to Work" and a better name for whatever the alternative is because I don't even know it. Freeloading or free riding, since they're exactly an attempt to kill unions via the free rider problem.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Workers Rights vs. Right to Fire "Right to Fire" is very good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
Right to fire works because its a clever turnabout that more clearly expresses the law's intent and doesn't involve "union" or "labor" which are scary words to idiots.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
"Right to fire" presupposes that there is or should be one. Don't say that the law you want to get rid of is protecting someone's rights!
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
e: ^^ YyyyuuuuuupppppThe Kingfish posted:Right to fire works because its a clever turnabout that more clearly expresses the law's intent and doesn't involve "union" or "labor" which are scary words to idiots. Are you reading every other post, or  twice burned ice posted:Right to Fire is At-Will Employment, not right to work. Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:At-will Employment = You can quit employment at any time with no penalty and your employer can fire you for any reason that is not against state/federal employment law. Even if it were matching the intent of the law, I don't see many of the temporarily embarrassed millionaires and Joe the Plumbers who make up the antiunion brigade being on board with limiting their ability to fire their future employees.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
HelloSailorSign posted:I've been looking to find more information on what South Dakota may be doing with this and other than this somewhat questionable Reddit post I haven't found anything else. Anyone else have any luck? A local paper reported on this plan when it was proposed. The /r/legaladvice post blew up when Zerohedge and Chapo Trap House both saw it - if you want to dig through the noise, there might be more info in their forums and discussions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:Coal is why there's mecury in fish. I used to take rad readings in Baltimore and one could tell which way the wind was blowing from the background increase from the coal terminals. It would move background up to like 5 or 6 micro sieverts /per hour. Coal terminal like 5 miles (as the crow flies) away too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
El Pollo Blanco posted:It is an incredibly clever way of destroying unionism while letting them continue to function in providing benefits to employees until the point they stop existing, yes. Aren't right-to-work states mostly red/purple? twice burned ice posted:
lol, he's not making the point he thinks he's making.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/stavvers/status/910199858207838209/photo/1
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:"Right to Work for Less" Virginia actually has a swear-jar penalty for that phrase. Testing has proven that phrase actually works against the speaker, since it's snide as gently caress and doesn't change minds. We've switched to Right To Work Is Wrong (less bad, but obviously not great) and "Freedom to Join Together" instead of unionizing (which I kinda like actually). ---- After last night's debate, I'm not sure anybody honestly shifted, nor do I expect them to. Northam stayed calm and on message, but didn't exactly inspire. Gillespie started strong, but got visibly flustered about halfway through. Only real gaffe of the night, to my mind, was GIllespie trying to well-actually the only man of color in the room what Confederate statues really mean. Just, you giant pill. I'm worried, but there's seven weeks to go and nobody's gonna give a gently caress about that debate. So we continue to knock.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
the democrats are so loving spineless they can't even bother to defend what meager healthcare we have right now https://twitter.com/Alexruoff/status/910286417422626817 for some reason they believe helping the republicans slowly dismantle obamacare is pragmatic...
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:"Human capital isn't actually a thing," - Forums Poster and Economic Genius Jizz Festival Nope, not my argument at all. I was pointing out how wrong it is to use data on how IQ affects income as a way to calculate the return you would get from raising the IQ of future children. It's like if I started a program to train 100,000 new engineers and claimed that the return on this investment would be the average engineer's income - unskilled income * 100,000. 100,000 new engineering jobs, all paying at current rates, are not going to replace 100,000 unskilled jobs to meet the new supply of talent. That infographic I was criticizing was essentially doing this but with IQ. Jizz Festival fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Sep 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
Right To Work Is A Rip-Off according to two or three bumper stickers a day around here.Ze Pollack posted:the democratic messaging that tests well is socialist as all hell Tell me more, so I can win the local red-district election using this one weird trick centrists don't want you to know.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:A local paper reported on this plan when it was proposed. I can't remember who posted it on Twitter, but they regarded /r/legaladvice as a great way to get a glimpse at the aggressive indifference of the US legal system.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:Nope, not my argument at all. I was pointing out how wrong it is to use data on how IQ affects income as a way to calculate the return you would get from raising the IQ of future children. Have you run a multivariate analysis? What quantifiable variables should we acknowledge on the macro level, and which should we ignore? TIA
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
Condiv posted:the democrats are so loving spineless they can't even bother to defend what meager healthcare we have right now meh, we already have catastrophic care plans (I assume copper would be slightly better than those). 'wide waivers' is rather concerning. I think it's more, Schumer thinks that stabilizing insurance markets is worth giving relatively minor* concessions. *again 'wide waivers' might be a majorly bad thing, dunno what exactly that would entail
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
You're replying to Condiv. He literally does not want to understand what that spokesmen is even saying, he just wants to rage.havenwaters posted:Ha. Great. gently caress. I mean, yeah it's going to happen. I'd rather it be next week than this week.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
Ha. Great. gently caress. https://twitter.com/politico/status/910555868848099328
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
havenwaters posted:Ha. Great. gently caress. It's bad, but it's bad in the same way as the last time McConnell called for a vote on the BCRA, 2015 repeal and so forth. A hard vote dispels the idea that they aren't trying to fulfill their promises, whatever the outcome, and makes it harder for their donors to put their careers in even more jeopardy. It's awful, mind you, and not an awful I want to dismiss.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
my bony fealty posted:meh, we already have catastrophic care plans (I assume copper would be slightly better than those). 'wide waivers' is rather concerning. any concessions to republicans are going to be bad. they literally want to rip away healthcare from millions, so concessions on ppaca are going to do damage. i do not have any faith that copper plans would be better than anything, or help at all. ditto wide waivers Boon posted:You're replying to Condiv. He literally does not want to understand what that spokesmen is even saying, he just wants to rage. i think i'm justified in raging about dems refusing to draw a line in the sand when p much everyone does not want the repubs carving up or destroying what healthcare we have. what good could bipartisanship in such a situation yield? Condiv fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Sep 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i think i'm justified in raging about dems refusing to draw a line in the sand when p much everyone does not want the repubs carving up or destroying what healthcare we have. what good could bipartisanship in such a situation yield? Nothing you'd listen to or consider, so it's not worth discussing. You fall into that category of segmentation where a rational decision maker goes, "The marginal costs of trying to win this person over is an impossible bar"
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
Shut up condiv.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
Mustached Demon posted:Shut up condiv. why should I? should i be happy the dems tried to fall for the same old bait and switch they've been falling for years? or do you honestly think that if this bipartisan bill to cut ppaca was passed the repubs wouldn't just try again with even more aggressive cuts relatively quickly?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
Shut up Condiv.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
This is your umpteenth reminder that Condiv is wealthy, comfortable, an entire ocean away from all these problems, and just uses performative outrage as a way to pass the time at his cushy programming job. Lately he's also accused people of being jealous of him when this is pointed out, so that's funny too. Throw in the borderline-illiteracy and he's basically a Trumper. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:This is your umpteenth reminder that Condiv is wealthy, comfortable, an entire ocean away from all these problems, and just uses performative outrage as a way to pass the time at his cushy programming job. i'm not wealthy, dunno why you keep trying to spread that lie oxxidation
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
Boon posted:Have you run a multivariate analysis? What quantifiable variables should we acknowledge on the macro level, and which should we ignore? TIA This isn't about statistical analysis, it's about how raising IQ (or in my example, training engineers) doesn't necessaeily change the composition of jobs that exist. Just because you train a bunch of engineers doesnt mean that more of the economy will be made up of higher paying enginewring jobs. In the same way, raising the IQ of children does not mean that a larger portion of jobs will be higher paying.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:You can be fired for any reason within 6 months of your hire date. thats neat How has the business lobby not killed the WDEA yet? Does the law have any actual teeth?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 01:28 |
|
|
DaveWoo posted:Equifax customer service outreach continues to go well: Nearly had a heartattack since my dad asked me to check his info on that site. Him and I have been following the situation and he was worried. He finally bugged me enough to use the equifax check site. It wasn't even an hour ago that I checked for him since he doesn't have a comp or any tech literacy. Luckily it wasn't the phishing site, but the address still caught me for a second.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 19:01
|
|
