 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Last time I checked, BT ownes the entire telephone network. Nobody
>> else is allowed to touch it.
>
> And no other company manages similar (albeit smaller) such networks?
No. That's why it's called a "government-granted monopoly".
> Sorry, but I'm just struggling to think what she does that wouldn't be
> needed in any other company in the country.
The only company that needs to know about network diagnostics is... the
company that runs the network. I would imagine.
(It also wouldn't surprise me if her contract forbids her working for a
competetor for X years - but I haven't actually checked...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> I've always been financially conservative, so I've
> never been so broke I'd be out on the street by getting fired.
I imagine this part is where the difference lies, yes. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Last time I checked, BT ownes the entire telephone network. Nobody else
>>> is allowed to touch it.
>>
>> And no other company manages similar (albeit smaller) such networks?
>
> No. That's why it's called a "government-granted monopoly".
Only for the public telephone network, large corporations have similar
(albeit smaller) internal systems that are not run by BT. Then there are
cable TV networks etc, I don't know if what she does is also applicable to
these.
> (It also wouldn't surprise me if her contract forbids her working for a
> competetor for X years - but I haven't actually checked...)
I have that for 6 months too, but it isn't legal so you can just ignore it
:-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> (It also wouldn't surprise me if her contract forbids her working for
>> a competetor for X years - but I haven't actually checked...)
>
> I have that for 6 months too, but it isn't legal so you can just ignore
> it :-)
Wait - you mean if somebody is in a contract, it's not necessarily
enforcible?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
> This is exactly what has been happening in France with France Telecom
> (aka Orange). It took around 25 suicides (a guy even stabbed himself in
> the stomach during a meeting) for things to become public. It's been a
> matter a national debate in the past months and some corporate heads
> were cut. It's difficult to say if things are really going to change but
> at least the victims are no longer alone wondering what they did wrong.
> In any case, it's really a matter of employees banding together, going
> public with this and making as much noise as possible. The harassement
> methods you describe are 100% identical to those used by FT (down to the
> people targeted by the bullying, i.e. senior engineers), so there's a
> precedent for it.
In the current financial times, it wouldn't surprise me if quite a few
companies have taken it into their heads to start doing this kind of thing.
Usually, if you treat your employees badly, they'll just quit, and then
you have a Big Problem. In the current conditions, people are rather
unlikely to quit, because there's nowhere to go. Plus the companies
themselves are presumably feeling the pinch and looking to cut corners
to save money. What could be cheaper than keeping your current workforce
and just forcing them to work harder?
What to do about this is another matter... If the comments of the
psychologist are anything to go by, you'd think there would be a fairly
strong case to answer.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I have that for 6 months too, but it isn't legal so you can just ignore
>> it :-)
>
> Wait - you mean if somebody is in a contract, it's not necessarily
> enforcible?
Most clauses in a contract are not laws in terms of things that are illegal
to do, they are just things that will get your contract terminated (ie
sacked) if you don't abide by them. After you have left a company obviously
the contract is terminated anyway, so the only thing they can do is take you
to court if they have proof you have done something illegal. Obviously
working for a competitor is not illegal, but something like telling them all
the secrets from the previous company might be.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Wait - you mean if somebody is in a contract, it's not necessarily
>> enforcible?
>
> Most clauses in a contract are not laws in terms of things that are
> illegal to do, they are just things that will get your contract
> terminated (ie sacked) if you don't abide by them. After you have left
> a company obviously the contract is terminated anyway
Hmm. So once you no longer work for them, they can't make you do anything!
> Obviously working for a competitor is not illegal,
> but something like telling them all the secrets from the previous
> company might be.
Really? I didn't know that.
Hmm. So I can't write a contract that says "you have to kill Jewish
people" and legally force anyone daft enough to sign the contract to
actually do this?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> So, does anybody have any *constructive* suggestions for how to remedy
> this unholy situation?
Yes. I would contact a lawyer and have him *construct* some paperwork,
informing the company of their potential liability for extreme emotional
distress.
If she can document any misrepresentation of a material fact reflecting
on her character, libel can be established.
Ask around for other people who are the targets of this conduct. If
it's really them and not her, she's not the only victim. She'll have
corroboration, and her attorney will have more clients.
If the company offers to settle, demand, as the non-negotiable
conditions of any settlement, the termination (with prejudice) of the
executive who initiated this campaign of harassment, the termination of
any employee who cooperated with this campaign, and a full item-by-item
review of her personnel file, with removal of all documents of her choosing.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> ...except that she doesn't do that any more. She ended up in the call
> center because she was getting too old for lugging ladders and stuff
> around in all weather.
Oh. I imagine there's lots of call for call-center work, or for managemen
t
and training of people to pull wires and such. As long as she doesn't giv
e
up as easily as you do. ;-)
> Well, this is it. The call handling target *was* 500 seconds per call.
> It should be self-evident that this is completely impossible.
Not at all.
> - If somebody calls you and spends 25 minutes screaming at you about ho
w
> **** your company is before they will even tell you what they're callin
g
> about, you cannot complete the call in 500 seconds. [Yes, this is
> apparently a *daily* occurrance. Some people apparently think they're
> important or something.]
I really can't imagine why she cares, other than it takes too long. I can
't
imagine how that could bother you emotionally, to have some loonie rantin
g
about the company you work for.
> - If some little old lady calls you, and you have to repeat yourself si
x
> times before she even hears what you said properly (never mind
> understands what you're asking), you cannot complete the call in 500
> seconds.
True.
> - If you have to transfer the call to another department, and they take
> 20 minutes to pick up the phone, you cannot end in the call in 500 seco
nds.
Sure you can. Watch: "Here, let me transfer you to the billing
department." Then you hang up on them.
Why do you think call centers have such a bad reputation?
> Oh, you're still expected to do the same *work*, just faster.
No, you're expected to hang up after that many seconds. "Sorry, got
disconnected."
> You're also not supposed to hang up.
Not on purpose at least.
> Apparently the only people more unreasonably than the company is the
> customers. Like the people running a business from their house. Phone
> stops working, they want 4-hour turnaround fixing it, or else £1,0
00 per
> hour for every hour they're out of service, because that's how much
> money they claim to be losing by not having a phone. But, obviously,
> these people are paying residential phone rates....... Um, yeah, nice t
ry.
It's not unreasonable to *ask*. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Is God willing to prevent phrogams, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing, to prevent phrogams?
Then he is malevolent.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Wait - you mean if somebody is in a contract, it's not necessarily
> enforcible?
Generally, in civilized countries, there are things you can't put into a
contract and have enforced. You can write them in, but you can't get the
government to force you to obey them.
For example, in California (since we're so big on start-ups), if I create
something on my own time with my own money and equipment, it belongs to me
even *if* it's *directly* in competition with the employer I was working for.
In Pennsylvania (where I grew up), the company was allowed to keep you from
working for any competitor that sold the same thing to the same customers
for something like 6 months or a year or so. I.e., if you sold copiers, you
could keep me from leaving but still selling copiers to your current
customers for six months. I could go to a different state and sell copiers,
or I could sell cash registers, but you couldn't stop me from working elsewhere.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Is God willing to prevent phrogams, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing, to prevent phrogams?
Then he is malevolent.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
