 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/08/2012 06:47 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> The laws are very heavily in favor of the employers
I've noticed that.
My employer decided to shut two sites. The American one? 3pm local time,
they say to everybody "pack up your stuff". And that's IT. The place is
shut. They'll pay some contractor to come round and flog off any company
assets which still have value, but as far as the staff are concerned,
they turn up to work on Tuesday, and then suddenly they were unemployed.
In the UK, you can't do that. We have these pesky employee protection
laws. Which means you can't just /shut/ the site, you have to pretend to
think about it for 30 days. And /then/ you can just shut it.
(Unfortunately, the law doesn't force the employer to /really/ think
about it. They only have to /pretend/ to reconsider...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/5/2012 1:57, Warp wrote:
> This is *technically* legal
The best kind of legal!
Seriously, I really have to wonder what legislators think they're
accomplishing by making laws that say "you're not allowed to do X, unless
the employee signs a contract waiving that right."
We had a law go into effect that said, basically, that even if when you left
the company you signed a form saying you wouldn't sue the company, you could
still sue the company over something they did illegally while firing you if
you didn't know they'd done it. (E.g., they fire you for being the wrong
skin color, which is illegal. To get your bonus, you agree not to sue. Then
one of your coworkers finds the memo telling your boss to fire you because
of your skin color. Now you can sue.)
Of course, instantly, all companies added clauses that said you waive your
right to sue over things you didn't know about when you got fired.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
"Don't panic. There's beans and filters
in the cabinet."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 19:41:14 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 05/08/2012 6:44 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 07:14:44 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> Lucky you.
>>
>> Indeed, I recognise that I'm pretty lucky in that respect.
>>
>>
> Well I've worked for multi-national oil companies. So you could say what
> principles?
>
> What a change from when I was in my twenties. A dope smoking, hair down
> to my arse, hippy type.
I think people's principles evolve and change over time.
>> 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.
>>
>>
> Most people I meet don't like working. They do it like your friend, to
> put bread on the table.
I think overall it's about 50/50 for me - in terms of the people I meet.
It's a very fortunate thing indeed to take something you love doing and
to be able to make a career out of it.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 19:47:12 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 05/08/2012 6:47 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 04:57:21 -0400, Warp wrote:
>>
>>> Le_Forgeron <jgr### [at] free fr> 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.
>>
>> Not in the US. Salaried employees...
>
> Now there's the rub.
>
> Hourly paid workers work their hours. Salaried staff work untill the job
> is done.
Yep. I worked one job where management "threatened" to move IT staff to
salaried from hourly. That was the job I was forced to resign from that
I've mentioned.
> I have worked several ghosters (two shifts of 12 hours). Twice when the
> clocks went back, making a twenty five hour day. The first time I was a
> contractor and got paid for it. The second time, by the grace of my
> supervisor got eight hours off. That still did not stop them from making
> me redundant when it suited them. LOL
Hate when that happens.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 22:11:51 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 05/08/2012 06:47 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> The laws are very heavily in favor of the employers
>
> I've noticed that.
>
> My employer decided to shut two sites. The American one? 3pm local time,
> they say to everybody "pack up your stuff". And that's IT. The place is
> shut. They'll pay some contractor to come round and flog off any company
> assets which still have value, but as far as the staff are concerned,
> they turn up to work on Tuesday, and then suddenly they were unemployed.
>
> In the UK, you can't do that. We have these pesky employee protection
> laws. Which means you can't just /shut/ the site, you have to pretend to
> think about it for 30 days. And /then/ you can just shut it.
>
> (Unfortunately, the law doesn't force the employer to /really/ think
> about it. They only have to /pretend/ to reconsider...)
Yep. When I was laid off from Novell, the layoff affected people around
the world. In the UK, employees had less idea what was going on, but
were given months' advance notice in the end. Similar situation in
Germany IIRC.
I offered to take through the end of the week to hand stuff off, and they
took me up on it. I know others in the US offices who made the same
offer and the offer was declined.
And in the US, remember that that not only affects your employment, but
your health insurance, since it's usually tied to your employer's group
plan.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 22:05:36 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 05/08/2012 06:49 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 13:57:24 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>
>>> 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...
>>
>> No, chances are you would have found something. You've got skills, and
>> eventually someone would have taken a chance on them.
>
> Having skills is a vastly different thing than /proving/ you have
> skills. Therein lies the problem.
Not for the right employer.
What's been working for me is to do contract work with companies I'd like
to work with. That lets them see you work and see what you can do. I've
impressed every company I've worked with AFAIK, and three of them have
talked about wanting to hire me - but with the economy the way it is,
everyone is hesitant to hire over here.
>> There's no way to know for certain what would've happened.
>
> Well, yes, that's ultimately true of everything in life.
Yep.
I'm glad to see that you're taking a "can do" attitude, though.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> This is *technically* legal
>
> The best kind of legal!
>
>
> Seriously, I really have to wonder what legislators think they're
> accomplishing by making laws that say "you're not allowed to do X,
> unless the employee signs a contract waiving that right."
>
> We had a law go into effect that said, basically, that even if when you
> left the company you signed a form saying you wouldn't sue the company,
> you could still sue the company over something they did illegally while
> firing you if you didn't know they'd done it. (E.g., they fire you for
> being the wrong skin color, which is illegal. To get your bonus, you
> agree not to sue. Then one of your coworkers finds the memo telling your
> boss to fire you because of your skin color. Now you can sue.)
>
> Of course, instantly, all companies added clauses that said you waive
> your right to sue over things you didn't know about when you got fired.
See, in my country, you can't write a contract that says something illegal.
Or rather, you can /write/ such a contract, and get people to sign it.
But it still isn't legal.
(E.g., your employer can make you sign a contract saying "if I steal
from my employer, they have the legal right to murder me in my sleep".
But if the company /does/ murder you in your sleep, it's still illegal.
It doesn't matter one jot what the contract says.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Having skills is a vastly different thing than /proving/ you have
>> skills. Therein lies the problem.
>
> Not for the right employer.
Yeah, well, there aren't too many of those around.
You would /think/ that the abundant evidence that I'm an intelligent
person with a large capacity to learn and the necessary drive to do so
would be worth more than a thousand paper qualifications. You would
think this would be the most valuable thing /ever/.
And yet, the vast majority of companies will simply say "do you have 3
years of commercial experience with product X?" If the answer is yes,
then they will speak to you. If the answer is no, suddenly you stop
existing. Don't give a damn about any other qualities you may have. If
you don't already know X, you're no good to us.
Because, let's face it, a guy with a weak knowledge of X is far more
desirable than a day with the capacity to learn everything there is to
know about X, Y, Z, Q, W, V and R and then some. Right?
> What's been working for me is to do contract work with companies I'd like
> to work with. That lets them see you work and see what you can do. I've
> impressed every company I've worked with AFAIK, and three of them have
> talked about wanting to hire me - but with the economy the way it is,
> everyone is hesitant to hire over here.
I don't see how that makes it any easier to find companies, make them
actually speak to you, and ultimately hire your services. It also
appears to provide no financial security whatsoever. Instead of spending
two years unemployed and then getting a job and being able to stop
looking, you end up having to /permanently/ search for jobs...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/6/2012 1:14, Invisible wrote:
> See, in my country, you can't write a contract that says something illegal.
Mine either. But the legislators write into the law "unless the employee
agrees otherwise."
Just like this thing with Sony and MS and Steam and all them suddenly
writing into their TOSes that you can't bring class action suits against them.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
"Don't panic. There's beans and filters
in the cabinet."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 09:27:25 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>> Having skills is a vastly different thing than /proving/ you have
>>> skills. Therein lies the problem.
>>
>> Not for the right employer.
>
> Yeah, well, there aren't too many of those around.
That's your experience, maybe. Others have a different experience.
> You would /think/ that the abundant evidence that I'm an intelligent
> person with a large capacity to learn and the necessary drive to do so
> would be worth more than a thousand paper qualifications. You would
> think this would be the most valuable thing /ever/.
I've fought this one for a long time. I refused to get certifications
and relied instead on having proven experience. That did disqualify me
from some jobs (Iomega once upon a time) - but I used it as an employer
litmus test; if they were more interested in the piece of paper than in
my actual abilities, I wouldn't want to work for them anyways, because if
there was ever a question about who was right on something, it'd be the
one who earned the certification rather than the one who had the
experience.
> And yet, the vast majority of companies will simply say "do you have 3
> years of commercial experience with product X?" If the answer is yes,
> then they will speak to you. If the answer is no, suddenly you stop
> existing. Don't give a damn about any other qualities you may have. If
> you don't already know X, you're no good to us.
If they're trying to fill a very specific need, then that becomes a
rather important qualification.
> Because, let's face it, a guy with a weak knowledge of X is far more
> desirable than a day with the capacity to learn everything there is to
> know about X, Y, Z, Q, W, V and R and then some. Right?
In some cases, yes, actually.
>> What's been working for me is to do contract work with companies I'd
>> like to work with. That lets them see you work and see what you can
>> do. I've impressed every company I've worked with AFAIK, and three of
>> them have talked about wanting to hire me - but with the economy the
>> way it is, everyone is hesitant to hire over here.
>
> I don't see how that makes it any easier to find companies, make them
> actually speak to you, and ultimately hire your services.
I've got now almost a year of experience at doing this. It helped that
my CV ended up in the hands of someone with a client list already, and
she's done the work of building the relationships with those companies.
She knows I'm looking, and has put me with these clients of hers
specifically so they can see what I'm capable of.
> It also
> appears to provide no financial security whatsoever. Instead of spending
> two years unemployed and then getting a job and being able to stop
> looking, you end up having to /permanently/ search for jobs...
That's why I have someone else to do that for me. :)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
