 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/08/2012 3:07 PM, Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>>
>>
>
> Depends on many, many things. But for now, I do feel that is the case. :-)
>
Good! I'm a "it's time to fill up my glass again" type of person, myself.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 00:54:50 -0400, waggy wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 18:57:27 -0400, waggy wrote:
>> > Doesn't that depend on how much they're paying and how desperate you
>> > are?
>>
>> Personally, I don't think so. But I've never been so desperate as to
>> have to compromise my principles for pay.
>>
> I hope you never are.
>
> Although being just shy of living on the streets did help me figure out
> exactly what my principles are, before selling a few.
I can say that I've come close - I nearly had my house foreclosed on many
years ago when I was forced to resign from a particularly ugly job.
>> > Consider the financial services industry. They appear to value,
>> > very,
>> > very highly, those who can think up new and creative ways to defraud
>> > people.
>>
>> I don't think I could work in that industry at all because of that - I
>> wouldn't even consider looking at it as a career option because it's an
>> industry that's all about greed, and I don't see greed as a virtue.
>>
> Stay away from the US health care industry, too. "Pay us money or you
> and your loved ones will suffer and die needlessly," is pretty much the
> definition of extortion.
Indeed it is. The job I mention above? A benefits administration
company. Right on the edge of the health care industry.
Fortunately, in the actual care facilities, there are many compassionate
people who do what they can even for those who cannot pay for it.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 07:14:44 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 05/08/2012 5:05 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Doesn't that depend on how much they're paying and how desperate you
>>> >are?
>> Personally, I don't think so. But I've never been so desperate as to
>> have to compromise my principles for pay.
>>
>>
> Lucky you.
Indeed, I recognise that I'm pretty lucky in that respect.
I had a chat with a software developer in Bangalore several years ago -
he hadn't compromised on principles, but he really didn't like developing
software. But it was a way for him to afford to feed and clothe his
family.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 10:10:03 +0200, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> 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.
The first project to be worked on was on a relatively short timeframe for
the work to be done, so it would have certainly required > 40 hour weeks
to meet the objective.
> A glass of water and the opportunity of working for them should have
> been enough to sustain you for the ten first years!
LOL
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
