|
TheImmigrant posted:Just because your boss ostensibly gives you permission to poo poo your pants doesn't mean that it's admirable, or even recommendable, to poo poo your pants. Yeah, but if you get fired for making GBS threads your pants in a workplace that has an explicit pant making GBS threads policy, is that really reasonable? Jarmak posted:That fact that millennials need to have guidelines set for them in order to know not to be aggressively insubordinate to their boss is a generational failing. I agree with you that the lady demanding an apology from her boss in the middle of a meeting was idiotic but lol if you think insubordination is something unique to millennials It takes a few years to learn professional boundaries. 20-somethings are lazy fuckups, news at 11. You eventually learn those boundaries or you burn out after a series of embarrassing failures. Do you think the 48 year old guy at the pizza place got there through hard work, dedication, and a healthy respect for authority? Here's a unique generational failing: The way baby boomers insist that missing even a single day of work in a quarter to illness is anathema and a sign of laziness and a poor work ethic Control Volume posted:The problem with millenials is pee poo fart rear end, a pile of stinky dungo. Everytime a millenial frrrrrrt squat and let 'er rip, and it's funny to me that millenials plop sploosh flush, in my humble opinion (imho) Mirthless fucked around with this message at 17:22 on Mar 21, 2016 |
#
¿
Mar 21, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 06:18 |
|
|
wateroverfire posted:IDK about lazy. It takes some effort to humiliate your boss in public instead of taking him aside privately and respectfully relating your grievance. It's really not our fault that people born between 1955 and 1980 grew up in the most peaceful and prosperous time in history and are now utterly incapable of dealing with any kind of social confrontation (edit: Because, lol if you get humiliated at somebody asking you for a loving apology) Gen X is particularly bad at this. If I see somebody age 35-45 in a service profession and I have a complaint I just loving swallow it at this point, there's no way I'm getting what I want and it's just going to spike my blood pressure because their precious little feelings get hurt. At least when we get upset it's over something actually lovely happening, the kids who thought Holden Caulfield was a sympathetic and relatable character flip their poo poo if you tell them they hosed up your espresso ToxicSlurpee posted:Here's another question; how many baby boomers turned out to be psychotic helicopter parents that sheltered their children from pretty much everything? The bluntness of digital communication hasn't helped much. The particular nuances of the social contract are lost in text and behavior that is considered polite online is unbelievably rude to people 35+ "IRL" kaleedity posted:name me a generation that's good about accepting responsibility for their actions My parents still haven't apologized for repeatedly robbing my social security to pay for their tax cuts Mirthless fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Mar 21, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
FTR our grandparents grew up in the "demand your boss give you a raise" generation. They grew up in a generation where you would get together all the other laborers in their workplace, go up to the boss as a group, and tell them as an organized union you were going to revolt against them if they didn't improve your working conditions. Those loving silents/greatests, lazy bastards with no social skills, just begging for handouts like the shiftless layabouts they were. Don't they know it's impolite to expect things of your betters?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
e: actually nvm
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:That involved using real balls (and ovaries. No sexist.) to confront real issues, though. Not indignantly demanding your boss apologize in front of the whole office for not apologizing hard enough to someone who had not only gotten a constructive resolution to their grievance (getting muslim holiday recognized), but who wasn't due a personal apology in the first place. Seems like a difference in kind to me. So she was being a little ridiculous, her boss would have to be pretty loving thin skinned to be humiliated by a clueless expectation of a gesture and even thinner skinned to fire them over it There was a time before right to work when a firing like that could have vacated an entire office building of primadonna "lamest generation" whiners in a full on labor strike, based on their piddly grievances over a firing being "potentially life ruining", as if that was ever a reason to not do a thing to a person, right? Those lazy, do-nothing Greatests, with their unreasonable expectations of being treated like a living person by their employers - they're really what's ruining this country! I can't even loving imagine how that exit interview must have gone, lol, wow. "Yeah, we're firing you because you made me feel vaguely embarrassed in front of a handful of your peers, I hope you learned your lesson about being critical of company policy and associating said company policies with me, a management representative of said company" Mirthless fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Mar 21, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:Considering my grandfather and his union used to make death threats to their bosses in order to get raises and actual breaks shows a whole different mentality when it came to labor disputes than today's "My boss didn't say sorry Yeah, unfortunately baby boomers voted people in with the specific purpose of taking away our right to organize so the only choice left to us to affect any kind of meaningful change is to criticize company policy from the bottom up on the individual level See how that worked out for her
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
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. "poor performance" is the blanket R2W excuse you use for "we fired somebody for no reason whatsoever" also, lol at playing mind games with your employees to make yourself feel better while enjoying an elitist game with your buddies, that's not at all representative of all the worst excesses of corporate management in the post-reagan era
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
menino posted:Sure, HR is one of the greatest sources of comeptitive advantage a company can have, but I guess I'm also biased. I like the idea that "overly anxious for feedback" is a criticism people have of Millennials, because a desire to go it alone and refuse criticism and new ideas really is a recipe for success and a sure sign you have a go-getter on your hands
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I think it's more the memory of a world where you didn't have to work hard to have a career. My mom had to go on long term disability for her job because carpal tunnel and bone spurs made it too hard for her  Carpal tunnel! Hah! Simpler times. Must have been nice to get by with such a lovely work ethic.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I'm joking. I'd rather have an organization where ideas and problems both bubble up. still not a reason to fire a person, still not a personal attack on her boss, still not his place to feel personally offended, still a huge raging pussy for potentially ruining somebody's life over his feelings getting hurt I'm sorry your generation decided to exemplify the pay gap they orchestrated between management and labor by requiring us to give up basic dignity and respect. We should know to treat you like the glorious ubermensch you are. We'll remember to know our place and treat you with the unyielding respect that you deserve, as members of the management class.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Yes, they tend to be more fragile as well. Yet another reason why making health care depend on employment is insane. 19 y/o girl I worked with at one of my first jobs had a degenerative condition in her spine and showed up to work every loving day she slipped a disc in her back and was two hours late one morning and actually apologized people can say what they want about us but millennials will work through stupid amounts of pain out of sheer obligation, because it's the only thing we've ever loving known
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:What really sticks out to me as indicative of thin skin is the way he made sure to explain how he had to restrain his temper and how lucky he (not her!) was that there was an audience to prevent him from just unleashing the rage 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:There's a provision for voluntary quits where the employee can show they made every reasonable attempt to maintain the employer/employee relationship. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH GOOD LUCK! Where are you even going to get the proof to back up your quit? Email it to yourself? Justified termination! quote:This is the section that would probably apply in that circumstance, assuming the employee can show they tried to get management to address their issues. For better or worse, though, unemployment insurance in the States is not designed to make it easier for you to quit. Trying to get management to address your issue gets you fired for performance reasons. Remember, you and your golf buddies were puffing on cigars and laughing about it a page ago? And guess what happens when you get fired for performance reasons? YOU GET DENIED UNEMPLOYMENT quote:Being fired means being fired for cause. If the employer wants to do that they need to go to the unemployment board and contest your unemployment. If you're let go "just because", you are elligible for unemployment. At-Will employment just means your employer doesn't have to go through a specific process to separate you. It doesn't mean they can fire you for cause without showing cause. "cause" is defined by the employer in at-will states. It is very, very easy for an employer to prove cause and they aren't even required to furnish evidence of cause unless you appeal, and who has time for the appeals process when you're unemployed and have no income coming in? Spend months fighting for unemployment, great, if you get it awarded it'll keep you supplied with all the booze you need to keep you warm since you're now a homeless person Here, let me break down how to collect unemployment in an at-will state: 1. Get laid off in a mass layoff 2. Get fired by a company whose headquarters and company policies are based in a state that isn't an at-will state, since they don't always go after unemployment claims Mirthless fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Mar 22, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I...guess? I mean, that seems like courting a lawsuit and you'd have to be pretty dumb to put yourself in that position as an employer vs. not contesting and enjoying the person you don't want around not being around anymore. AGHGTHG AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHG AGGFHH HOW ARE YOU THAISIERJn YOU CANNOT SUE YOUR EMPLOYER FOR TERMINATING YOU IN AN AT WILL EMPLOYMENT STATE UNLESS YOU ARE A MEMBER OF A PROTECTED CLASS THAT IS THE ENTIRE POINT OF AT WILL EMPLOYMENT!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:You mean like the muslim woman in the example we were talking about earlier who mouthed off to her boss about religious descrimination? How? With what savings? How is someone going to afford to spend 2-3 months fighting through appeals without any income coming in? They can't get a job or their claim is automatically going to get closed. I'm not saying employers shouldn't be able to fire people. I am saying they shouldn't be able to fire people for literally any reason they can think of without their employee having some kind of safety net in place to keep them from ending up on the streets. This whole thread started in the first place because a toddler/diaper baby in SF couldn't handle seeing any homeless people - do you think they just materialize into the world in an electrical storm, ala The Terminator? Reproduce by budding? Spore colonies? The Slithery D posted:Well, the people did thunk probably cut out some expenses, saved some money, got support from their family, or chose not to have children if they were the sort of people who couldn't provide support to their family. When rent, electricity, food, phone and internet (the five things you need to get a job) take up 80% of your income and basic day-to-day expenses take up the other 20% I don't know how you're expected to block out five grand to save money, and you don't have to have kids to live in poverty and be in a completely untenable position if you lose your job. If I bother you, sure, fire me. But your mild irritation at me does not outweigh the consequences that your purely convenience based firing decision bring down on my own life. Pay unemployment - the pittance that it is - and move on with peace of mind that you don't have to be bothered anymore. Or suck it up, rally, and show up to work with people you hate every day like LITERALLY EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD DOES YOU NARCISSISTIC EGOMANIAC Mirthless fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Mar 22, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:It's Oklahoma. A state where people have to be actively reminded "Hey you're part of the United States and people have rights that you just can't rescind.". I probably could have appealed on the second one at least and won but if I'd waited the three months or so it took for the process to resolve I would have been homeless
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Average time to find a new job after losing one is still far, far over six months, assuming you can even get it in the first place. Hey great the system as advertised is woefully inadequate in the first place. To make it worse it's geared in a way that makes it difficult to even use in the first place. Yeah the last time I lost my job I actually did get awarded unemployment and it ran out because it took me 13 months to find a permanent job in my field I had a couple temp contracts along the way but I looked hard, had my resume professionally looked over, had tons of connections on linkedin... I got screwed by timing, one of the biggest IT houses in town was in the process of moving to contractor-only and suddenly there was 500 IT professionals with similar experience sets looking for jobs. I don't know what I would have done without unemployment for the first portion of it, but I know when I ran out of money I had to sell nearly every valuable thing I own, and donate plasma and start reselling garage sale/thrift store pickups for small profits because it was the only option I had to pay the bills while I was looking Being unemployed in this country is awful, even with unemployment.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
a shameful boehner posted:Mirthless you realize wateroverfire is a Chilean business owner (expat?) who unironically supported/s augusto pinochet, right haha, I didn't  btw, haha: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba424 In Chile you get unemployment even if you get fired (they use your state retirement benefits that you pay into, kind of like social security) It's almost like we could use some other system for unemployment benefits. I don't know, maybe like some sort of... social security net?* wateroverfire posted:The Pinochet thing was SedanChair being SedanChair, fwiw. You don't exactly make it easy to refute edit: To expound on this, an easy way to reform unemployment insurance would be to just issue the unemployed a social security check until they're employed again and if they go over a certain number of months you let them borrow against their "balance". I know you don't actually pay into social security, but a repayment of the benefits you collect (after a certain amount) at 0 interest (or a temporarily delayed retirement age, alternatively) would be a good way to defray costs and a lot better than our current "unemployment extensions not available? You're hosed!" system that we have in place now. You can make up the rest of the budget by taking the unemployment tax companies are already paying and dumping it straight into the social security fund. Mirthless fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Mar 22, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Basically it's not that different from the states, except that you pay into a personal account that on the plus side you get no matter what, but on the downside you have to deplete before you get public money. This would still be a preferable alternative to the American system of "You're hosed if you lose your job, so I hope you're good at giving handjobs to your boss"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
Coolness Averted posted:If unemployment insurance was just some cool service we offered as a society that came out of the general fund as needed, such denials and an uphill struggle would make sense, but employees lose a chunk of their paycheck directly to pay for unemployment, and get capped on benefits based on their pay-in. Why is society not obligated to pay that back? Yeah I just want to point out that while employers pay an unemployment tax in practice, 100% of that is taken out of their employees checks in the form of lower overall earnings. Any expense passed onto the employer is passed on to the employee. If we're going to pay for it anyway, we should be entitled to it regardless. I'd rather see it show up on my paycheck as another 3% tax. Jarmak posted:This is utterly wrong Please give me an example of a time a person was fired in an at-will state for a non-discriminatory reason and won their wrongful termination case And when you can't do that, please give me an explanation for the point of at-will termination because afaik there was never a law on the books in any state that said "If you fire your employee without a good reason you are going to jail or getting fined". AWE is designed to make it easy for employers to deny unemployment and to shield employers from legal consequences from frivolous terminations. A good example is firing people for trying to organize unions. (this is why AWE has been paired with RTW in most of the country, just saying) also I'm sorry for seeming so entitled I sure am such an entitled loser for not wanting to be rendered homeless because my employer didn't think an inch of ice on the road was a valid reason to not drive to work. Really, people like me should just be lined up in front of a furnace to be used as fuel, that's all us poors are good for, right? wateroverfire posted:Data updated through Feb. 2016 29 weeks is longer than the maximum amount of time you can collect unemployment in nearly any state in the union, hth also the 99 weeks thing happened when our economy was on fire and our unemployment rate in some cities and states was cresting 20% so great example there Mirthless fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Mar 22, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Cool. That's the way it works in CA, and things often don't work as well in practice as they do on paper. It could absolutely work better, I agree. I disagree that it's arbitrary. Did you check the box for every unemployment claim or just select ones? Because not having income is as good as being robbed or having your house burn down because they can all put you on the street Why are you so opposed to the idea of your employees having a basic out if things don't work out? Wouldn't it make it even easier for employers to get rid of employees if there was a good social security net in place? Or is the real reason you're opposed to this the thought that maybe your employees could use the leverage guaranteed unemployment gives them to negotiate for better pay or find a job that will offer them better benefits?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:That not what at will employment even means, it literally has no impact if you're fired for cause.  quote:Use in US labor union contracts[edit] Employment at will means your employer can bypass 100% of the above things. They don't have to give you forewarning, they do not have to have a write-up process, they do not have to give you chances or make sure you are aware of the policy, and they don't even have to have hard rules on the books to explain why you are fired. Employment at will means you can be fired for literally any reason whatsoever, and the only justification your employer needs to prove is "they did something we felt was wrong", not "they did something wrong that they knew was wrong and that we tried to correct". The difference between at-will employment and the former status quo is that in an at-will state your employer can make up a reason to fire you, on the spot, and as long as you did the thing they made up the reason for it is a justified termination. They do not need to prove your disciplinary record. In an AWE scenario, it is the employer's judgement that decides what just cause is, not any legal standard. a shameful boehner posted:any other hot takes you got like your support for the genocide of native peoples Hey man, high school dropouts and white supremacists need to feed their families too Mirthless fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Mar 22, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:If you set fire to your home the fire service puts the fire out and the police put you in jail. Here's a person who's never been suddenly unemployed in his life
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:If you set fire to your home the fire service puts the fire out and the police put you in jail. Losing 30% of the hair on my head and developing stress ulcers in my lower GI, racking up 4 grand in credit card debt, ending up with a 30,000 dollar medical bill I couldn't pay for a staph infection in my scrotum (I was temping at a hospital briefly) and having my marriage almost dissolve, oh man, those awesome vacation memories. Every summer break! Can't wait until next vacation!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Every person who doesn't have a job anymore only has themselves to blame. External circumstances do not exist. Tru dat, I caused that ice storm with my weather machine, and I would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for those meddling republican patriots! Jarmak posted:They can absolutely bypass all of those things, but they didn't, you were fired for cause I don't know a single person in my immediate circle of friends and coworkers who hasn't been fired for a bullshit cause at least once or twice. But OK. You believe what you want about me based off the way I post on an comedy forum.  Employers don't even blink at firings out here. Most interviewers don't even loving ask. The only time it's ever caused a problem is when I've applied for out-of-state positionsMirthless fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Mar 22, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Do you think individual effort at finding work is a factor in the duration of a person's unemployment? It's funny how libertarians use supply and demand as their guiding light in politics but forget it loving exists when they're talking about jobs
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Tell them to keep looking because there is a shitload of churn in the US labor market. I looked very hard for a job the last time I was unemployed. I did everything someone could reasonably expect. Applied for jobs every day. Went to interviews constantly. Had a top-ranked Linkedin for my area and a professionally touched up resume. There was too many people looking in the field in my area because of massive layoffs (the same layoffs I got caught up in) - the supply of workers simply outstripped the demand. I eventually got stuck taking temp jobs that didn't give me benefits and had horrible health problems as a result. I got constantly dicked over by recruiters, too. I can't count the number of bait and switch interviews I had to bail out of mid-way through because it turned out my recruiter just flat-out lied about the position. I had one temp contract that I got loving tricked into and then couldn't get out of becuase I wouldn't be able to restart my benefits if I'd quit. Being unemployed is a goddamn nightmare in some parts of the country. Jarmak posted:There's a poo poo ton of hoops to get those benefits from the military, not the least of which would be giving up years of your life, living in conditions that would make you jealous of homeless people, having people try to kill you a bunch of times... oh and chronic pain for the rest of your life. Here's a person who has no idea what kind of conditions homeless people are living in in the united states
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:People leave jobs for tons of reasons. The less mobility there is in the labor market, the worse life is going to be for the unemployed you're looking to help. If your goal is more mobility in the labor market, wouldn't offering unemployment to people who quit their jobs be a solution to that? If you're worried about people just turning jobs into a revolving door, make the quit benefits tied to the number of years you've been on the job or something. Two months of quit-unemployment per year of service up to 1yr of unemployment. Suddenly people who feel enslaved to a low paying dead end job have options and the job market becomes far more fluid overnight.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Posters claiming to be after public health in order to hide their desire to get back at that bitch Debra in HR. Good poo poo. As mentioned on previous pages GMI or reformed saner to access welfare at least is more achievable and solves more problems than questionable firing law proposals that may run afoul of free association. ITT hiring manager delusions lol if you think it is saner or easier to pass massive welfare expansions or GMI than it would be to provide even the most basic levels of unemployment reform
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:There's a poo poo ton of hoops to get those benefits from the military, not the least of which would be giving up years of your life, living in conditions that would make you jealous of homeless people, having people try to kill you a bunch of times... oh and chronic pain for the rest of your life. Cool, I already have chronic pain for the rest of my life, can I get 100% disability or am I going to be stuck on the lovely 720 dollars a month social security will give me? (No, I have to work a job like everyone else, you entitled shithead.) Jarmak posted:Actually I do quite a bit of volunteer work with the homeless, but please tell me about the living conditions in Afghanistan. You said you were living in those conditions, and the conditions poppy farmers in afghanistan are living in (and homeless in the US) are considerably worse than air conditioned temporary buildings located in secure well-defended military bases with running water and electricity Mirthless fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Mar 22, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:That's more then I get also my brother is on 100% disability (minor shrapnel wound in his leg, no loss of mobility) and not only does he collect substantially more than that, he also can work a full time job without any restrictions or loss of income which is more than anyone on social security disability can say. If you make more than 1100 a month from a job on SSI you will lose your disability and if you make any money at all over 100/mo you have to pay it back into the system at a rate of 50%. SSI is loving terrible. The Slithery D posted:Yeah, but you don't have 100% military disability. That's worth ~$36k+ per year (depending on dependents) tax free, although "chronic pain" won't get you there. You can also work a full time job and the military can't just show up and say "Welp, not disabled anymore!" and take your benefits away You're a piece of poo poo but I genuinely appreciate and respect the fact that you are ideologically consistent enough to know what a load of horseshit "100% disability" is Mirthless fucked around with this message at 20:47 on Mar 22, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I was an infantryman, I lived in holes dug into mountaintops when I was in the east, and abandoned or occupied buildings when I was in the south, getting pulled back to live in some tents on one of those bases you're talking about for a week or two of refit was like going to Disneyland. oh no you had to go camping a few days a week for a year, poor baby That's totally comparable to the people who freeze to death in central park every winter.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 06:18 |
|
|
The Slithery D posted:Can I get his name and his congressional district, TIA. PTSD was a factor, yeah, but in fairness he had PTSD for about 15 years before he joined the army and the shrapnel just brought back his night terrors. Most of the poo poo he got out on was stuff that was wrong with him before he ever began military service. Like narcolepsy, the genetic condition our father gave him (he gave us the PTSD too, thanks dad!)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2016 20:53
|
|