 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:15:33 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>>> (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?
As Darren says, it depends on what it is. But even in circumstances like
that, I know people who have been hired by a competitor who had to wait
out the "waiting period" and their new employer arranged things for them
to be paid while they took a year off in order to fulfill the non-compete
clause.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:49:32 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>>> She spent about 10 years installing people's telephones, running
>>> telephone cables, diagnosing network faults, etc.
>>
>> OK. That would be the monopoly part, yes.
>>
>> Maybe look at a construction company who wants someone experienced when
>> wiring up new buildings?
>
> ...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.
Supervisory work would probably be a good option, then - she knows how
it's done, so she could possibly lead a team, do the actual cable plant
design work (but have someone else pull the wires), that sort of thing.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 01:11:43 -0400, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> at least for what I have seen on U.S.A trial movies,
I wouldn't use this as a guide for what's possible in the real world....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Depends, some cases are fictional so those will stay out of
consideration but, real-life cases maybe be a good reference. I wouldn't
call it a guide since it doesn't guarantee any success but I think would
give you an idea what to expect. But since our friend here is English
won't be much of a help, probably he knows better about legal outcomes
in UK.
Cheers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
