|
Surely you can also clock in 14 minutes after the start of your shift, and then leave 14 minutes early but get credit for the full shift....
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2023 19:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 01:34 |
|
|
Thesaurus posted:Surely you can also clock in 14 minutes after the start of your shift, and then leave 14 minutes early but get credit for the full shift.... The way they're describing how it's handled by this company, that would get clocked as 8:15-4:45, which would reportedly get counted as 30 minutes of unexcused absence. As, it's always rounding toward less time counted on the timesheet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2023 19:23
|
|
|
Thesaurus posted:Surely you can also clock in 14 minutes after the start of your shift, and then leave 14 minutes early but get credit for the full shift.... Nope, I can not. The rounding rules in place at my job only apply to the "outside" of our shifts. If we clock in early, it rounds. If we clock in late, it doesn't round at all. If we clock out early, it doesn't round. If we clock out late, it rounds. So, hypothetically, if I were to clock in at 7:02am, and clock out at 3:04pm, then if there was no rounding at all, my time card would say I've worked 8.03 hours. Instead, the rounding rules we have would round my clock out time back to 3pm, but not round my clock in time at all, which would result in my time card saying I worked 7.97 hours. BigHead posted:Call employment lawyers and show them your documentary proof. Ask them what else you should do. Yeah, this is the most reasonable thing, which is what I'm going to do. neogeo0823 fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Aug 19, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2023 19:39
|
|
|
Weird how their "rules" only benefit the employer at your expense 
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2023 20:27
|
|
|
My work has the 'you can clock into work up to 15 minutes early ' but you are not allowed to do work, just gear up (boots and high viz) until 7am. That's because we have 2 time clocks and 95 people. Extremely regimented clock out, allowing overtime or comp for every minute over your end of day, PLUS 10 minutes wash up time. People come in, and loiter in the hall, because you are not allowed to leave the lot until your end of day. All of this negotiated by the Laborers union.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2023 23:13
|
|
|
I am not a lawyer, which is why I feel comfortable asking if you are willing to wear a huge clock necklace like Flava Flav in the pursuit of your rights?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2023 04:29
|
|
|
I've got one last question, this time much more general. I recognize this question sounds stupid, even to me, but I've been bitten before by not asking this, so I guess it's better to ask a stupid question than end up with a stupid result. So, I'm looking up employment lawyers in my town, and there's just a seemingly endless list of results. Is there anything specific I should be looking for that would scream "yeah, this person knows their poo poo"? Something like, I dunno, number of years practicing, or some specific accreditation, or something? Or am I fine to pick a random person from the top 5 Google results and just call them?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2023 22:18
|
|
|
neogeo0823 posted:I've got one last question, this time much more general. I recognize this question sounds stupid, even to me, but I've been bitten before by not asking this, so I guess it's better to ask a stupid question than end up with a stupid result. If you know any lawyers who aren't employment law lawyers, call them and ask them who'd they'd hire for an employment law issue. You can also try searching for news articles about employment cases that have gone to trial recently in your area and see if anybody's won one lately. You generally don't win at trial by accident.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2023 22:33
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:If you know any lawyers who aren't employment law lawyers, call them and ask them who'd they'd hire for an employment law issue. Thank you, I'll do that. And thank you to the rest of the thread for all the help. This whole thing is daunting to me, and between this and the other issues at work, I've been incredibly anxious for the last while. You guys have at least given me a solid direction to go in for this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2023 23:27
|
|
|
What happens if Trump wins an election before he gets convicted of anything? Can you throw a president in prison? What if it's before the inauguration?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2023 07:43
|
|
|
Organza Quiz posted:What happens if Trump wins an election before he gets convicted of anything? Can you throw a president in prison? What if it's before the inauguration? Once again, nobody knows,
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2023 14:54
|
|
|
Organza Quiz posted:What happens if Trump wins an election before he gets convicted of anything? Can you throw a president in prison? What if it's before the inauguration? Any state or federal sentence will probably be stayed during his tenure in office. He will pardon himself for all of the federal offenses.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2023 15:04
|
|
|
Wait he can't be president if he gets convicted before he's elected right? I'm taking that as a given but I just had the horrible thought I'm wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2023 15:19
|
|
|
Organza Quiz posted:Wait he can't be president if he gets convicted before he's elected right? I'm taking that as a given but I just had the horrible thought I'm wrong. Nah, there’s nothing in the constitution that says
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2023 15:21
|
|
|
Organza Quiz posted:Wait he can't be president if he gets convicted before he's elected right? I'm taking that as a given but I just had the horrible thought I'm wrong. There's a lot of things you would think would be true but here we are.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2023 15:23
|
|
|
Organza Quiz posted:Wait he can't be president if he gets convicted before he's elected right? I'm taking that as a given but I just had the horrible thought I'm wrong. I think one or two of the federal charges may have a prohibition on serving in a public office if convicted, but that would certainly face a constitutional challenge. The only constitutional requirements for being president is 1: be a natural born citizen, 2: be at least 35 years old, and 3: have lived in the USA for at least 14 years. There is no constitutional prohibition on criminal acts preventing you from running for office. The senate could have voted to prevent him from running for office either time he was impeached but declined to do so. Even if he's in jail, it doesn't stop him from running or being elected. Eugene Debs literally ran for president while incarcerated.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2023 15:26
|
|
|
Are there any states that have laws that prevent felons from being on the ballot? I know there’s some that won’t allow him to hold public office but I’m curious if there’s any about the ballot itself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2023 15:37
|
|
|
Big Bowie Bonanza posted:Are there any states that have laws that prevent felons from being on the ballot? I know there’s some that won’t allow him to hold public office but I’m curious if there’s any about the ballot itself. In places that have those laws it only matters for state races. Federal races are governed by the federal government. If any tried to prevent Trump from the ballot there will be a quick federal challenge.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2023 15:51
|
|
|
Big Bowie Bonanza posted:Are there any states that have laws that prevent felons from being on the ballot? I know there’s some that won’t allow him to hold public office but I’m curious if there’s any about the ballot itself. Which is good! Georgia passing a law in 2020 that nobody who has previously been a part of the chain of succession can be president would have been bad. Mr. Nice! posted:I think one or two of the federal charges may have a prohibition on serving in a public office if convicted, but that would certainly face a constitutional challenge.  at the idea of the Roberts Court agreeing with that interpretation
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2023 15:56
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:Nope, and even if there were, that'd be challenged and overturned rapidly. SCOTUS has been clear that states cannot add restrictions beyond what the constitution does for federal races. It's why, for instance, term limits would require an amendment. The exception is for things relating to election administration (like filing deadlines), covered by time/place/manner in article 1. I'm not even sure that federal laws that limit presidential access can stand up to constitutional muster with the present court. The only way that Trump is not the republican presidential candidate is if the gop pass rules that allow them to replace him a the convention. They will alienate their base and case a lot of issues if they do it, but it's literally the only thing that will stop him. He holds the support of a plurality to a majority of republican primary voters in every state, their support has grown for him with each successive indictment, and his diehards (71% of all people who voted trump in 2020) believe him above all other sources. The only way Trump is not the nominee is if you get people that believe him over their pastors and family to vote for someone else.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2023 16:19
|
|
|
Is treason illegal? The answer may surprise you!
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2023 19:44
|
|
|
Organza Quiz posted:What happens if Trump wins an election before he gets convicted of anything? Can you throw a president in prison? What if it's before the inauguration? If he wins the election he can try to pardon himself for any federal crimes. This will cause a constitutional crisis that will push the case to the Supreme Court who will rule for Trump. If he wins the election he can claim that while president he cannot be tried, or if convicted, imprisoned for state crimes, because he's been elected president and must be able to perform those duties free of interference from individual states. This will cause a constitutional crisis that will push the case to the Supreme Court who will rule for Trump. e: whoa, that window was open for a while... joat mon fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Aug 21, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2023 19:54
|
|
|
Strategic Tea posted:Is treason illegal? The answer may surprise you! Treason is special in that it is the only crime enumerated specifically in the constitution because the founding fathers did not want it tossed around willy-nilly. It was also not a disqualification for president until the 14th amendment, and Trump likely has not met the legal requirements to be disqualified under the same.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2023 19:59
|
|
|
Welp thread thanks I guess. I think I just assumed since felons can't vote they obviously can't hold office as well but of course that wouldn't necessarily be the case. Good luck, American friends.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 01:18
|
|
|
Organza Quiz posted:Welp thread thanks I guess. I think I just assumed since felons can't vote they obviously can't hold office as well but of course that wouldn't necessarily be the case. Good luck, American friends.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 01:46
|
|
|
Organza Quiz posted:Welp thread thanks I guess. I think I just assumed since felons can't vote they obviously can't hold office as well but of course that wouldn't necessarily be the case. Good luck, American friends. It’s overall not a bad thing that a jury can’t effectively single out people and say “you can’t run.” If someone is impeached and convicted that can be a term, I think.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 01:57
|
|
|
Yes. I believe one or two federal judges have been impeached, convicted, and barred from holding office. It's up to Congress to decide to do that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 02:10
|
|
|
Trapick posted:Felony disenfranchisement is state-by-state, with a whole range of whether it happens, whether it can be undone, etc Do Florida's felony voter disenfranchisement laws apply to felonies committed out of state? Say like, Georgia? Asking for a friend
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 04:01
|
|
|
There's also the 14th amendment or whatever that says traitors/insurrectionists can't hold office.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 12:24
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:There's also the 14th amendment or whatever that says traitors/insurrectionists can't hold office. 14th amendment, section 3 posted:Section 3. I feel like it’s a stretch but people have written many words saying it applies: https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/20/trump-disqualified-constitution-section-3-14th-amendment https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 12:31
|
|
|
ulmont posted:I feel like it’s a stretch but people have written many words saying it applies: https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/20/trump-disqualified-constitution-section-3-14th-amendment I think it will take a Court to decide and even then I don't know what happens. An injunction against him going on a ballot? Another impeachment? And then does the section of the amendment require a conviction for one of those crimes? Or just a finding a fact by a court?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 12:59
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I think it will take a Court to decide and even then I don't know what happens. An injunction against him going on a ballot? You'll have to read the article to see their historical take. This was only a live issue for a few years since the 14th amendment was adopted in 1868 and just four years later in 1872 Congress said "gently caress it, let the Rebs back in" with the Amnesty Act.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 13:11
|
|
|
ulmont posted:You'll have to read the article to see their historical take. I most certainly will not
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 15:04
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I think it will take a Court to decide and even then I don't know what happens. An injunction against him going on a ballot? I’m not even sure it’s applicable to the Presidency, which in other contexts has been held to NOT be an “office” of the United States.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 17:35
|
|
|
Jean-Paul Shartre posted:I’m not even sure it’s applicable to the Presidency, which in other contexts has been held to NOT be an “office” of the United States. It's discussed in the article ulmont linked, but literally the Constitution calls it the "Office of the President" and the ratification debate about the 14th includes a very similar point and it was made quite clear it should be interpreted to include the Presidency. Debate over the 14th posted:Third, a variant of the Blackman-Tillman argument was explicitly made and explicitly refuted in the congressional debates proposing Section Three. Senator
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 18:12
|
|
|
pseudanonymous posted:Think about the breadth and scope of this question.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 18:40
|
|
|
Kalman posted:It's discussed in the article ulmont linked, but literally the Constitution calls it the "Office of the President" and the ratification debate about the 14th includes a very similar point and it was made quite clear it should be interpreted to include the Presidency. That’s the better reading purposively, but see the Appointments Clause and Art. VI.3, and note that we don’t have a purposive Court.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 18:47
|
|
|
Jean-Paul Shartre posted:That’s the better reading purposively, but see the Appointments Clause and Art. VI.3, and note that we don’t have a purposive Court. The appointments clause is probably irrelevant, or arguably even helpful, because it notes “whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for”, which is text that suggests that the Constitution describes the method of appointment for some officers elsewhere in the text. I don’t see that VI.3 is actually relevant, as it makes the same sense whether you view the president as an officer or not. (And interpreting it in the way you’re saying would make it legal to have a religious test for the Presidency unless you engage in the totally contradictory exercise of deciding that an office can be occupied by someone who isn’t an officer.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 19:29
|
|
|
In a 5-4 decision, the supreme court has ruled that the president can just do whatever he wants, as long as he's a Republican. While most signed the majority Roberts opinion of "lol, lmmfao, owned," justice Thomas appeared to provide a series of doodles of sacks with dollar signs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 22:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 01:34 |
|
|
neogeo0823 posted:Thank you, I'll do that. I think you should probably contact your state’s department of labor, because it will be a lot cheaper than a lawyer and also you won’t be or are less likely to be branded as “that guy/gal that sued their former employer and thinks anyone will ever hire them again.”
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2023 05:14
|
|
