Now that most of the shock has worn off....

"Sherry" wrote in message
...
On Jul 6, 8:13 pm, "MaryL" -OUT-THE-LITTER
wrote:
"hopitus" wrote in message

...





On Jul 6, 3:51 pm, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
wrote:
MaryL wrote:

"Jofirey" wrote in message
...

The reasons are legal. You have to treat everyone the same in the
situation or get sued by anyone you single out.

Jobs I've had, it would only take seconds to take client lists etc
if
allowed back at your desk. I'm sure a computer could be messed up
nearly as quickly.

Jo

Unfortunately, that pretty well sums it up. It is unusual to do this
without any advance notice, but even that is becoming more common.
The
only time I saw that happen is when the head of the computer
department
was fired. He was permitted to go back to his office for his personal
items, but only with a security officer accompanying him. There were
apparently concerns that damage could be done very quickly to the
computer system.

Apparently people nowadays are more "revenge" motivated than they used
to be! Time was that normal people would never have considered
sabotage, even if they were not too shocked at the sudden termination
to
even think that far.

MaryL

I believe people are flat-out fed up. They are smarter and see Big
Bidness (the
Shrub's expression) for what it is...too many huge companies have
literally or
figuratively given us the finger. Last straw is losing your job w/o
warning. But
there are little signs, if you keep your ears and eyes
open....recently the
huge CA corp. that owns the hospital I worked at last in FL before I
moved
sold it to a nearby well-subsidized religious-owned bigger hospital.
All the
employees of my former employer must now *apply*to get hired by the
biggie one taking over. I saw that coming 4 years ago, before I left.
Bottom
line to the corp. is this: is it making big bucks for us? If not, bye
bye.
Due to economy, hospitalized patients frequently either have no
insurance
or cannot pay for their stay.....

I spent two days in the hospital in January. I have good insurance, but my
out-of-pocket expenses were more than $1,500. When I went in to pay that
bill and paid the whole thing, the woman at the billing desk said, "That
leaves you with a $0.00 balance." It's hard to explain her reaction, but
she seemed both surprised and delighted. That whole exchange surprised me,
but I guess I didn't fall into the "norm."

MaryL- Hide quoted text -

I was mildly surprised to find out that if you make a few phone calls,
and ask if there's
a "discount" for paying in full within 30 days. the answer was "yes"
all the way around.
Ten percent. Definitely worth the phone call. OUr yearly out-of-pocket
is $2,000, which means
that no matter what happens, we will never pay more than $2,000 in one
year. So, 10% was
a quick $200 just for asking.
Sherry

Sherry

Good idea. I did ask if there was a discount, but I didn't ask about the 30
days (although mine was). A discount was offered in the past, but that was
a number of years ago.

MaryL

"hopitus" wrote in message
...
On Jul 6, 3:51 pm, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
wrote:
MaryL wrote:

"Jofirey" wrote in message
...

The reasons are legal. You have to treat everyone the same in the
situation or get sued by anyone you single out.

Jobs I've had, it would only take seconds to take client lists etc if
allowed back at your desk. I'm sure a computer could be messed up
nearly as quickly.

Jo

Unfortunately, that pretty well sums it up. It is unusual to do this
without any advance notice, but even that is becoming more common. The
only time I saw that happen is when the head of the computer department
was fired. He was permitted to go back to his office for his personal
items, but only with a security officer accompanying him. There were
apparently concerns that damage could be done very quickly to the
computer system.

Apparently people nowadays are more "revenge" motivated than they used
to be! Time was that normal people would never have considered
sabotage, even if they were not too shocked at the sudden termination to
even think that far.



MaryL

I believe people are flat-out fed up. They are smarter and see Big
Bidness (the
Shrub's expression) for what it is...too many huge companies have
literally or
figuratively given us the finger. Last straw is losing your job w/o
warning. But
there are little signs, if you keep your ears and eyes
open....recently the
huge CA corp. that owns the hospital I worked at last in FL before I
moved
sold it to a nearby well-subsidized religious-owned bigger hospital.
All the
employees of my former employer must now *apply*to get hired by the
biggie one taking over. I saw that coming 4 years ago, before I left.
Bottom
line to the corp. is this: is it making big bucks for us? If not, bye
bye.
Due to economy, hospitalized patients frequently either have no
insurance
or cannot pay for their stay.....


Interesting how things go in cycles. I feel that we are returning to the
conditions -- the disproportionate power of business, and governmental
complicity-- that necessitated labor unions. For those who complain about
the power unions once did-- or rarely still-- hold in workplaces, it's true
that many unions did become corrupt. But scratch the surface of a work rule
that management doesn't like, and you will find an abuse that management
once exerted, and wants to be able to exert again.

But I just don't see that we are going to return to the labor movement as
it was, unfortunately. The global nature of business now has taken all the
power out of workers' hands, and I don't know how the balance can be
restored.

--
Theresa, Stinky and Dante
drtmuirATearthlink.net

Stinky Pictures: http://community.webshots.com/album/125591586JWEFwh

wrote in message
...
Kreisleriana wrote:

The most important bullet point was this one, IMO:
"Don't disclose. You don't have to disclose lifestyle choices or
off-the-clock activities unless there is a clear link to your ability to
perform the job, Secunda said."

Ah yes - Don't Ask Don't Tell. This is saying "stay in your closet".
I don't agree with this. There is a risk in coming out (whatever you
are coming out about), but for a lot of people, those risks are
necessary. So let's not go overboard about telling people they have
to shut up about who they are. I just think people should be informed
about the risk, and understand the reality, so they can decide whether
it's worth it to them to be open about themselves.


I wasn't saying this from the point of view of self-censorship. I was
saying this from the point of view that I simply don't believe that an
employer has the right to ask certain questions of its employees, or of its
potential employees. To me, this borders on them wanting to own me and my
entire life. Work is not life. Work is an economic exchange of time,
services and money. My employers do not own me when I go home. They do not
have the right to dictate my behavior on my own time.

--
Theresa, Stinky and Dante
drtmuirATearthlink.net

Stinky Pictures: http://community.webshots.com/album/125591586JWEFwh

"Cheryl P." wrote in message
...
Kreisleriana wrote:
wrote in message
...
Kreisleriana wrote:

The most important bullet point was this one, IMO:
"Don't disclose. You don't have to disclose lifestyle choices or
off-the-clock activities unless there is a clear link to your ability
to
perform the job, Secunda said."
Ah yes - Don't Ask Don't Tell. This is saying "stay in your closet".
I don't agree with this. There is a risk in coming out (whatever you
are coming out about), but for a lot of people, those risks are
necessary. So let's not go overboard about telling people they have
to shut up about who they are. I just think people should be informed
about the risk, and understand the reality, so they can decide whether
it's worth it to them to be open about themselves.


I wasn't saying this from the point of view of self-censorship. I was
saying this from the point of view that I simply don't believe that an
employer has the right to ask certain questions of its employees, or of
its potential employees. To me, this borders on them wanting to own me
and my entire life. Work is not life. Work is an economic exchange of
time, services and money. My employers do not own me when I go home.
They do not have the right to dictate my behavior on my own time.

They also don't have the right to know or even enquire about stuff in your
private life unless it very, very clearly affects your ability to do your
job. When I hear 'don't disclose', I think privacy, and the old days when
employers would try to find out whether a woman was married (and if so, if
her husband was working as well, or at least able-bodied), whether she had
children, was planning to have children, had an active sex life and
therefore might have children due to birth control failure etc etc etc.

Now, if I'm not going to be available to be called in on short notice
because I have some kind of outside responsibilities like child care that
would prevent that, I would have to withdraw my application as soon as I
became aware that such call was a requirement of the job. But the employer
(or potential employer) still doesn't get to ask about my private life.
"Can you handle call once a week?" is different from "How many children do
you have and who's going to take care of them while you are working?"

Not answering nosy and impertinent questions isn't self-censorship. It's
making people respect your privacy.

Cheryl


Exactly.

--
Theresa, Stinky and Dante
drtmuirATearthlink.net

Stinky Pictures: http://community.webshots.com/album/125591586JWEFwh

Kreisleriana wrote:

wrote in message

Ah yes - Don't Ask Don't Tell.

I wasn't saying this from the point of view of self-censorship. I was
saying this from the point of view that I simply don't believe that an
employer has the right to ask certain questions of its employees, or of its
potential employees. To me, this borders on them wanting to own me and my
entire life. Work is not life. Work is an economic exchange of time,
services and money. My employers do not own me when I go home. They do not
have the right to dictate my behavior on my own time.

OK, thanks for clarifying. You were focusing more on the "Don't Ask" end
of things.

I remember reading an article back in the late 80s/early 90s about a
company that had been sued for wrongful termination by two employees.
They'd been ired because they were having an affair, and one of them
was married (to someone not employed by that company). They didn't do
anything inappropriate on the job - no fooling around in the supply
closet - but the employer felt that, as a "family-values oriented"
company, these two had exhibited morally objectionable behavior that
didn't reflect well on the organization.

I'm happy to say that the two fired employees won their suit. Don't
remember how it was resolved - whether they got their jobs back, or got
paid damages, or what. I was just glad that a court decided in their
favor.

The company was called "Walmart", and it was the first time I'd ever
heard of it. But I've never shopped there, and that incident was just
the first in a long list of reasons why. I mean, how dare they?

Joyce - unabashed basher ^..^

(To email me, remove the triple-X from my user name.)

Cheryl P. wrote:

Kreisleriana wrote:

Work is not life. Work is an economic exchange of time,
services and money. My employers do not own me when I go home.
They do not have the right to dictate my behavior on my own time.

They also don't have the right to know or even enquire about stuff in
your private life unless it very, very clearly affects your ability to
do your job...

Now, if I'm not going to be available to be called in on short notice
because I have some kind of outside responsibilities like child care
that would prevent that, I would have to withdraw my application as soon
as I became aware that such call was a requirement of the job. But the
employer (or potential employer) still doesn't get to ask about my
private life. "Can you handle call once a week?" is different from "How
many children do you have and who's going to take care of them while you
are working?"

Well put. You're right, it's entirely possible for someone to ask for
the specific information they need without delving into your private life.
(And making assumptions that are often based on stereotypes - I mean, even
if you do have young children, who's to say you don't have grandparents
living with you who can take over at a moment's notice, or some other
situation that makes it possible for you to be on the job on short notice?)
They should care only about *whether* you are or are not available to do
what they need, not why.

--
Joyce ^..^

(To email me, remove the X's from my user name.)

wrote:
hopitus wrote:

I was surfing the news online and came across this job-loss article...
perhaps we could learn something from it?

http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/career-arti..._you_fired-427

What I have learned from this is that business can do what it wants with
its employees. Workers are more disempowered than ever in this country.
The labor movement has no teeth anymore. And with a only a handful of
exceptions, the unions are just another layer of management - one that
the employees have to pay for, at that.

I can understand the issue of confidentiality, in terms of company
technology or information. If someone has been found giving out that
kind of information, then I agree it's grounds for dismissal, since
that is a direct threat to the company. And the person doing it knows
it, too.

I think it's absurd that a company would feel threatened because an
employee posts about controversial topics, that are totally unrelated
to company business, on the net. It should be illegal to fire someone
because of that, especially if the activity is completely unrelated
to work. People should be able to live their lives as they please, as
long as they're not breaking laws or doing harm.

That said, and the situation being what it is, it's good to post in
public forums using a pseudonym, something I didn't start doing until
recently. Also, as far as I remember, I have never posted the actual
name of the company I work for. (If my memory is faulty on this, and
someone googles a post where I did post my employer's name, *please*
don't repost it here! It would be bad enough if I did it once!)

There are definite advantages to being retired! (Although living on a
fixed income isn't really one of them.)

wrote:
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote:

MaryL wrote:

The
only time I saw that happen is when the head of the computer department
was fired. He was permitted to go back to his office for his personal
items, but only with a security officer accompanying him. There were
apparently concerns that damage could be done very quickly to the
computer system.

Apparently people nowadays are more "revenge" motivated than they used
to be! Time was that normal people would never have considered
sabotage, even if they were not too shocked at the sudden termination to
even think that far.

That and the fact that computers make sabotage so much easier. Widespread
damage at your fingertips, if you know how to do it.

Which reminds me of this quote:

"A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any other
invention, with the possible exceptions of handguns and Tequila."
-- Mitch Ratcliffe

Mistakes, and also revenge, apparently.

That's true - our computer-reliant society is NOT an unmixed blessing,
is it? ...Although being fired (unless for something like dishonesty)
wasn't the kind of trauma when I was young that it is now - jobs were
plentiful, if you didn't like one you could quit and rapidly find
another (simply neglecting to mention the short-term jobs when listing
references). Also, unions were strong, and even non-union employers
offered many of the same benefits (they HAD to, to compete in a booming
economy).

Kreisleriana wrote:
wrote in message
...
Kreisleriana wrote:

The most important bullet point was this one, IMO:
"Don't disclose. You don't have to disclose lifestyle choices or
off-the-clock activities unless there is a clear link to your ability to
perform the job, Secunda said."
Ah yes - Don't Ask Don't Tell. This is saying "stay in your closet".
I don't agree with this. There is a risk in coming out (whatever you
are coming out about), but for a lot of people, those risks are
necessary. So let's not go overboard about telling people they have
to shut up about who they are. I just think people should be informed
about the risk, and understand the reality, so they can decide whether
it's worth it to them to be open about themselves.


I wasn't saying this from the point of view of self-censorship. I was
saying this from the point of view that I simply don't believe that an
employer has the right to ask certain questions of its employees, or of its
potential employees. To me, this borders on them wanting to own me and my
entire life. Work is not life. Work is an economic exchange of time,
services and money. My employers do not own me when I go home. They do not
have the right to dictate my behavior on my own time.

But ideas (or motives) change when it comes to information required on
employment applications. I was delighted when the first "Fair
Employment" legislation went into effect, back in the late -fifties,
early -sixties. It made it illegal to ASK a potential employee's age,
sex, religion, race, or national origin (although you COULD ask if
he/she were a citizen). Then along came the "quota" system (although
they call it something else) where an employer or educational
institution has to hire or admit prescribed percentages of the various
defined groups. (So nowadays, you STILL have to answer all those
"illegal" questions, even though the alleged purpose is different!)

kirjoitti:

That and the fact that computers make sabotage so much easier. Widespread
damage at your fingertips, if you know how to do it.

Which reminds me of this quote:

"A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any other
invention, with the possible exceptions of handguns and Tequila."
-- Mitch Ratcliffe

Mistakes, and also revenge, apparently.


And I'm reminded of a quote I'm not sure I remember word for word, but
it went something like:

Everybody makes mistakes,
for a total screw-up you need a computer...

--
Christine in Laitila, Finland
christal63 (at) gmail (dot) com
photos: http://s208.photobucket.com/albums/bb108/christal63/
photos: http://community.webshots.com/user/chkr63