 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Hmm. So once you no longer work for them, they can't make you do anything!
Well, it depends on the contract. Some parts might be marked "this survives
the employment", like the trade secret clauses. You have to read it. IANAL.
> 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?
Around here, that would be called "hiring a hitman", and you might wind up
in jail just for asking me to sign it. :-)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> I know a few people (mostly female actually) who I think would react the
> same way as Andrew's mum. It's not nice when someone you love is
> feeling that way.
Oh, I fully agree. I know quite a few women and a handful of guys who
would get upset that the boss was yelling.
My wife also gets upset at my in-laws for acting like in-laws.
Heck, I know people who rant about Microsoft doing things with Windows that
will make them more money at the expense of their customers, as if that
wasn't their entire job. ;-)
--
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?
>>
>> 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.
>
it is not worth it for the company to take you to court and risk loosing
then having costs awarded against them. I did it once when I was working
via an agency for Guinness, abroad. Then a couple of months later I went
to Guinness in London as a contractor directly. The agency were p*issed
off but they still considered me for other jobs.
>
>
> 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?
Duh!
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 11:56:00 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> So, does anybody have any *constructive* suggestions for how to remedy
> this unholy situation?
Talk to a lawyer who specializes in UK employment law. I don't know
about in the UK, but many lawyers in the US will do a free consultation.
That discussion alone could help determine a good course of action. From
the sound of it (and IANAL in the US, much less the UK) it sounds like
there may be some things that are actionable.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:20:04 +0100, scott wrote:
> No, it sounds like she should make a complaint. At the very least she
> should be recording all such incidents.
Yes, as my wife's attorney (in her divorce case before we were married)
said, "if it isn't documented, it didn't happen.". Andy's mom needs to
start keeping a logbook of everything that happens at work that is
intended to make her want to quit. Date, time, and what.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:51:14 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>> And no other company manages similar (albeit smaller) such networks?
>
> No. That's why it's called a "government-granted monopoly".
I don't know what kind of work your mum does, but maybe her skills could
be reapplied at a mobile phone network of some sort? BT doesn't own
those, as I recall.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
