Le 05/08/2012 06:08, Jim Henderson nous fit lire :
>  I clearly had the skills, but not the 
> "passion for their company or product" 

You were expected to work double time for free. You are a picky a*****e
to have ask a salary.

A glass of water and the opportunity of working for them should have
been enough to sustain you for the ten first years!

Post a reply to this message

Le_Forgeron <jgr### [at] freefr> wrote:
> You were expected to work double time for free. You are a picky a*****e
> to have ask a salary.

Technically speaking it's illegal here (and I'm sure in most civilized
countries) to ask an employee to work extra hours without pay, and it's
also quite illegal to fire them just because they refuse. Yet it happens
all the time here.

Finnish law protects employees from being fired at a whim, without a good
reason (monetary problems or employee misconduct are good reasons; the
refusal of an employee to work extra hours for free certainly isn't). Even
when the employer does have a good reason to fire the employee, the
employer must give a three-month notice (except in special circumstances).

Employers get around this tiny problem with a trick: Rather than employ
people indefinitely, they employ them a few months at a time, always
renovating the employment contract at the end of the previous one. This
way they can "soft-fire" someone by simply not renovating the contract.
This is *technically* legal (because they are not firing anybody), yet
achieves practically the same effect as firing someone at a whim.

Of course now the employers have leverage over the employees: If they refuse
to make extra hours without pay, then the employer might have no option but
to let him go... You know, difficult times, economic recession and all
that... (Never mind that they immediately hire someone else to fill the
vacancy. Someone who *is* willing to donate the extra hours.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Le 05/08/2012 10:57, Warp nous fit lire :
> Le_Forgeron <jgr### [at] freefr> wrote:
>> You were expected to work double time for free. You are a picky a*****e
>> to have ask a salary.
> 
> Technically speaking it's illegal here (and I'm sure in most civilized
> countries) to ask an employee to work extra hours without pay, and it's
> also quite illegal to fire them just because they refuse. Yet it happens
> all the time here.
> 
> Finnish law protects employees from being fired at a whim, without a good
> reason (monetary problems or employee misconduct are good reasons; the
> refusal of an employee to work extra hours for free certainly isn't). Even
> when the employer does have a good reason to fire the employee, the
> employer must give a three-month notice (except in special circumstances).
> 

Nearly the same thing here (France).
Additional bonus: previous ruling from tribunal states that refusing
extra hours is ok if previously extra hours wasn't paid. So, at most,
you get a month of unpaid extra, then stick to the clock, if you have
the nuts to fight.

> Employers get around this tiny problem with a trick: Rather than employ
> people indefinitely, they employ them a few months at a time, always
> renovating the employment contract at the end of the previous one.

A difference here, they can make it twice in a row only. And there is a
10% bonus (of the whole sum for the contract since its beginning) at the
end if they do not offer the place.

> Of course now the employers have leverage over the employees: If they refuse
> to make extra hours without pay, then the employer might have no option but
> to let him go... You know, difficult times, economic recession and all
> that... (Never mind that they immediately hire someone else to fill the
> vacancy. Someone who *is* willing to donate the extra hours.)

Yep, the old trick of "someone will do it if you do not". Works only for
low-formation time job. If getting productive take 4 months (to know the
job and setting), they cannot play that trick. (they might enforce a
strong documentation, but strong documentation costs a lot)

Post a reply to this message

On 05/08/2012 09:57 AM, Warp wrote:
> Le_Forgeron<jgr### [at] freefr>  wrote:
>> You were expected to work double time for free. You are a picky a*****e
>> to have ask a salary.
>
> Technically speaking it's illegal here (and I'm sure in most civilized
> countries) to ask an employee to work extra hours without pay, and it's
> also quite illegal to fire them just because they refuse. Yet it happens
> all the time here.

My sister is an accountant. She's /paid/ to work from 9 to 5. And yet, 
it's not uncommon to hear that she's stayed in the office until 11pm, 
and then taken a laptop home and worked until 3am. (And then gone back 
to the office at 8am on 4 hours' sleep.)

Sure, /technically/ they're not allowed to make people do that. But when 
the entire office is "expected" to put in the hours, and everybody else 
/does/, what are you going to do? Guess who gets the big promotions, the 
bonuses, etc. Yeah, that's right - the people who work for free...

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>
> Finnish law protects employees from being fired at a whim, without a good
> reason (monetary problems or employee misconduct are good reasons; the
> refusal of an employee to work extra hours for free certainly isn't). Even

Actually refusing to work extra hours even when paid isn't a good reason 
for firing. The law makes no exceptance on the wording that extra hours 
must always be separately accepted by the employee.

> Employers get around this tiny problem with a trick: Rather than employ
> people indefinitely, they employ them a few months at a time, always
> renovating the employment contract at the end of the previous one. This
> way they can "soft-fire" someone by simply not renovating the contract.
> This is *technically* legal (because they are not firing anybody), yet
> achieves practically the same effect as firing someone at a whim.

After 3 short-time contracts it's actually illegal to just let people 
off and hire someone else instead (except, of course, the employee 
himself is willing to go).

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On 04/08/2012 10:37 PM, andrel wrote:
>> - do not have a problem posting about internal issues in your company
>
> I do not believe that this is a plus point for employers. ;-)
>

Might be, if there are potential customers here. After all, if we 
*don't* hear Andrew ranting, the firm must be a good place. ;-)

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

On 05/08/2012 11:43 AM, Eero Ahonen wrote:

>>
>
> Might be, if there are potential customers here. After all, if we
> *don't* hear Andrew ranting, the firm must be a good place. ;-)
>




-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>>> This.  Looking back on it, most of the positions I've held, including those
>>> while I was active duty in the military, I got through word-of-mouth referral,
>>> despite the fact that I suck at networking.
>>
>> ...right... so given that I don't know anybody, I should just give up
>> now? Is that what you're saying?
>
> Absolutely not.  I have no intention of giving job-hunting advice here.  I suck
> at finding a job even more than I suck at networking.  That's why I have an
> interest in your saga.

My reply came off as perhaps more aggressive than I intended. What I 
/meant/ to say was something along the lines of:

1. If I accept that only people who are connected can get jobs, then I 
must accept that I will never get a job.

2. If I accept that, then basically any job hunting effort is a waste of 
time and I should just give up now.

3. Since I have no intention of giving up, I must therefore assume that 
#1 is actually incorrect.

> I failed to find a job for a year after receiving my undergraduate degree in
> civil engineering, that's why I'm back in school.  It didn't help that the
> economy melted down shortly before I graduated, or that my best contacts in the
> civil engineering department left or retired, some in disgrace.

Yeah, right now isn't a great time to be trying to get a job. (Not that 
it's ever /easy/, as far as I'm aware...)

> Despite sucking at networking, that's how I landed my current position.  Strange
> things happen.

I got my current job because daddy put in a good word with the bosses, 
and they were absolutely desperate. If it weren't for that, I'd 
presumably have been unemployed for the last ten years...

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
>

>

Depends on many, many things. But for now, I do feel that is the case. :-)

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> My reply came off as perhaps more aggressive than I intended.[/]

As did mine, on rereading it now.

> [/] What I
> /meant/ to say was something along the lines of:
>
> 1. If I accept that only people who are connected can get jobs, then I
> must accept that I will never get a job.
>
> 2. If I accept that, then basically any job hunting effort is a waste of
> time and I should just give up now.
>
> 3. Since I have no intention of giving up, I must therefore assume that
> #1 is actually incorrect.

And, thank you for this nice little proof by contradiction with my morning
coffee.

Post a reply to this message