If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Now that most of the shock has worn off....
"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 |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Now that most of the shock has worn off....
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 |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Now that most of the shock has worn off....
"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 |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Now that most of the shock has worn off....
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.) |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Now that most of the shock has worn off....
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.) |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Now that most of the shock has worn off....
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Now that most of the shock has worn off....
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!) |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Now that most of the shock has worn off....
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Shock | [email protected] | Cat health & behaviour | 0 | April 25th 08 07:16 AM |
Shock | [email protected] | Cat health & behaviour | 0 | April 24th 08 06:13 PM |
I'm in Shock | Will in New Haven | Cat anecdotes | 3 | April 19th 07 07:12 PM |
[OT] I'm In Shock! | CatNipped | Cat anecdotes | 144 | April 23rd 05 05:24 AM |
How do I worn a cat that hates midications? | Ted Davis | Cat anecdotes | 20 | June 10th 04 07:01 AM |