I think the three months notice thing is meant to give the employer all the power to be flexible, while requiring the worker to kiss ass and give all their base up.
It can probably be implied in this case that those who already have a job with someone else need not apply.
If you need someone right away, your only options are someone fresh out of college or otherwise just entering the job market, someone who just got shitcanned somewhere else, or someone who is willing to sell out their previous boss to jump on board your ship.
Unfortunately, as unprofessional as it is to single someone out for personal reasons, it's a lot MORE unprofessional to buck the chain of command by making a stink about it, or worse, filing a lawsuit over it.
All "professionalism" is, is a respect for authority. You act professional to avoid pissing off someone who can hurt you. You don't treat your boss like shit because he can fire you if you do. You don't treat your customers like shit because they can shop elsewhere. Unless you have a monopoly, and can get away with it (and monopolies usually can and do, oddly enough).
Similiarly, if you treat someone on your payroll like shit, the worst that can happen is that other workers avoid you like the plague (unless unemployment is so high that the employer has a monopsony and can get away with it). If you bitch about it though and get yourself branded as a rebel in the process, you're screwed.
That's why it's unprofessional to bitch and moan about getting screwed. Because your future bosses won't give a shit and will probably even side with your unfair boss.
It's not right, but like it or not employers in the same industry are a bit of a fraternity that looks out for one another. Don't expect sympathy if you buck a bad boss.
And you never SHOULD be a good fit for a workplace that wants you to bend over and get screwed.
Sadly, she's probably still going to get blacklisted, by hook or crook.
And since bosses look out for each other and burn people for complaining, they will always get away with this crap. Because they know anyone who tries to sue them to put a stop to it is getting their career trashed anyway.
And the truth is probably that complaining about it would trigger a coverup ending in her getting fired and the evidence getting shredded.
She probably knows it could only end badly for her.
Hell, most counseling for being victimized at work advocate moving on, because it's pretty damn obvious that when the chain of command turns on you, you can't do squat about it.
And as quick as companies are to use the law to browbeat their competitors every chance they get, they ought to fall in line when the law is not on their side.
You may have been downvoted, but I agree with some of your points.
Laws that merely serve to cloak activity instead of actually stop it are useless and simply save the market for the shady ones that have fewer scruples about breaking the law. Just like how prohibition only served to fatten the mob with bootlegging money.
And you are correct about blacklisting, even though the lawsuit has merit. The question is whether or not she already had anything to lose, and possibly also whether she considers it worth it to be a martyr for the cause.
If it's going to happen on the sly anyway, we may as well be open about it. All outlawing it does is make sure that only the shady companies are brave or callous enough to try it. An indirect version fo the "criminals vs guns" debates.
And if conditions in the rest of the world really are that sucky that THEY think of it as profitable to steal jobs from us, then may be we need to count our own blessings.
Unfortunately nuclear waste is a federal issue and the glory of interstate commerce demands that the feds get to do what they want with it and not get taxed for it.
Simply put, the federal government has preempted states on DOE issues.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the three months notice thing is meant to give the employer all the power to be flexible, while requiring the worker to kiss ass and give all their base up.
It's also useful as leverage.
At will doesn't mean you're free to burn bridges, even if your boss is the one dousing it with gasoline.
So basically, don't piss off a potentially vindictive boss or give him ammo to fuck you over with.
Ladies and gentlemen, it's unfair as hell, but like it or not your boss has you by the balls and you need to suck it up and respect that fact.
You can be sued for anything.
And usually, who wins depends on who has more money to spend on legal bills.
They don't have to.
It's their payroll and so long as they don't break the law, they can hire and fire and give references as they darn please.
Just because one needs to work to eat, doesn't make you entitled to a job. Until you actually earn your pay, it's not your money.
It's an imbalance of power and the employer knows it.
So does the next employer.
It can probably be implied in this case that those who already have a job with someone else need not apply.
If you need someone right away, your only options are someone fresh out of college or otherwise just entering the job market, someone who just got shitcanned somewhere else, or someone who is willing to sell out their previous boss to jump on board your ship.
Actually, in bankruptcy law (at least in the us) outstanding paychecks get paid first.
You were probably going to get the money anyway and the accountant just saved you some time.
You know how singing one tree can burn down a whole forest?
Bridges connect to bridges, and if you light one on fire, another might catch too.
Bosses have a good chance of being friends or colleagues in the industry.
No, it's not fair.
You hit the nail on the head.
You give more notice than you get because you are the employee and they are the employer.
It really is as simple as that, an imbalance of power that you must respect.
Short sell.
Indeed. It's just a papering over to placate the voters.
You should sue them for copyright infringement.
Unfortunately, as unprofessional as it is to single someone out for personal reasons, it's a lot MORE unprofessional to buck the chain of command by making a stink about it, or worse, filing a lawsuit over it.
All "professionalism" is, is a respect for authority. You act professional to avoid pissing off someone who can hurt you. You don't treat your boss like shit because he can fire you if you do. You don't treat your customers like shit because they can shop elsewhere. Unless you have a monopoly, and can get away with it (and monopolies usually can and do, oddly enough).
Similiarly, if you treat someone on your payroll like shit, the worst that can happen is that other workers avoid you like the plague (unless unemployment is so high that the employer has a monopsony and can get away with it). If you bitch about it though and get yourself branded as a rebel in the process, you're screwed.
That's why it's unprofessional to bitch and moan about getting screwed. Because your future bosses won't give a shit and will probably even side with your unfair boss.
It's not right, but like it or not employers in the same industry are a bit of a fraternity that looks out for one another. Don't expect sympathy if you buck a bad boss.
The reaction was to discrimination.
And you never SHOULD be a good fit for a workplace that wants you to bend over and get screwed.
Sadly, she's probably still going to get blacklisted, by hook or crook.
And since bosses look out for each other and burn people for complaining, they will always get away with this crap. Because they know anyone who tries to sue them to put a stop to it is getting their career trashed anyway.
And the truth is probably that complaining about it would trigger a coverup ending in her getting fired and the evidence getting shredded.
She probably knows it could only end badly for her.
Hell, most counseling for being victimized at work advocate moving on, because it's pretty damn obvious that when the chain of command turns on you, you can't do squat about it.
Because the H1B rules say so.
And as quick as companies are to use the law to browbeat their competitors every chance they get, they ought to fall in line when the law is not on their side.
You may have been downvoted, but I agree with some of your points.
Laws that merely serve to cloak activity instead of actually stop it are useless and simply save the market for the shady ones that have fewer scruples about breaking the law. Just like how prohibition only served to fatten the mob with bootlegging money.
And you are correct about blacklisting, even though the lawsuit has merit. The question is whether or not she already had anything to lose, and possibly also whether she considers it worth it to be a martyr for the cause.
We need free competition on both sides, supply AND demand.
If labor gets cheap, we should be seeing more startups hiring, right?
Where are they?
You should have sued them for copyright infringement.
So?
Let the race to the bottom begin.
If it's going to happen on the sly anyway, we may as well be open about it. All outlawing it does is make sure that only the shady companies are brave or callous enough to try it. An indirect version fo the "criminals vs guns" debates.
And if conditions in the rest of the world really are that sucky that THEY think of it as profitable to steal jobs from us, then may be we need to count our own blessings.
Glassification is not ideal, true, but it's better than the current methods of disposal.
The environment can't really wait for us to figure out we should reprocess it.
Unfortunately nuclear waste is a federal issue and the glory of interstate commerce demands that the feds get to do what they want with it and not get taxed for it.
Simply put, the federal government has preempted states on DOE issues.
Maybe they should start recycling it?
Hot nuclear waste that still has a lot of radiation also has a lot of energy left to give.
Also, we have glassification techniques that can neutralize a lot of the danger.
I smell a rat that's getting fattened up as a government contractor.
My boss won't let me.
Even though he has one himself, oddly enough.