It's a fools errand to try and keep an employee who has started looking for other work, even if they seem irreplaceable. There is little the employer can do to stop the move. Chances are employees who are looking to leave, will, regardless of what you do. Best you can do is assist the employee with a smooth transition and hopefully get them to honestly tell you why they are making the choice to leave.
It's also a bad idea for an employee to make ANY obvious moves about their desire to leave. Don't tell anybody that would put it in the rumor mill either. Be professional and give notice... NEVER burn the bridge. It's a small world.
You could always, you know, just... not use LinkedIn.
Excellent Advice... There is no good reason for it. Think of it as a quasi professional Facebook and trust what you read there with an even bigger grain of salt. There is little information there, certainly no information I'd trust.
I don't want to work for any employer who thinks checking my LinkedIn profile is even part of a background check anyway...
That was actually used by broadcast operations... It was the "professional" standard.. Toslink is not really a professional standard, at least not any more. It doesn't carry enough channels and suffers from being dependent on optical cabling. AES50 works on standard network cabling and distances and carries 32 channels each way.
Toslink is being supplanted by HDMI and Bluetooth for a reason that's totally different than Sony's Betamax demise... Why run two cables when one or none works just fine?
A fair wage, fair hours, and a fair share. Once again, we must offer the American people a new deal; Hell, it's about time!
Socialism doesn't work. History proves this.
What we have is equal opportunity in this country and freedom in this country, it's called capitalism and by it's very nature it doesn't distribute outcome equally because individuals have different abilities and make varying efforts. Equal outcome is socialism, which leaves you enslaved and not free.
Think of a 100 yard dash. All the runners run the same race on the same track and the same distance, only one wins. Opportunity was equal, but only one wins. Why? Because the runners bring differing skills, abilities, training and may apply different effort. The race is fair, even if the outcome varies. Who'd run if everybody got the same trophy? (That's the issue with socialism, there is no incentive to make an effort)
Um... wealth is NOT a necessary precondition for producing new wealth. Yea, it helps, but wealth doesn't produce wealth, it only amplifies the thing that creates wealth.
You see, the dirty little secret to creating wealth is not having money, but working hard, taking risks and investing your time and efforts wisely. Another dirty secret is most of us will make multiple millions of dollars in our lives in salary so we *could* live like millionaires if we decided too. The problem though is most of us choose to live for today at a higher standard of living than we should so we never can parlay those multiple millions of dollars that pass though our hands into wealth.
So, you want to be wealthy? Earn it, do the things to make yourself wealthy, save capital by living beneath your means, work, take risks, invest and keep doing and learning until you become wealthy. Don't just sit on the couch and complain because others seem to be lucky and have stuff you cannot borrow enough to buy. Do something about it.
Infrastructure, affordable healthcare, not collecting income tax from people who earn less than even the average income, etc.
If only that where true...
Eventually, if we don't do something about this by either growing the economy or cutting spending, all those taxes you collect will not buy enough ink and paper to print the money you will need to pay interest on the debt...
When that happens, what's going to be the plight of the poor?
Well, unless they have so much wealth that they can distort markets - particularly the housing market - or have disproportionate influence in politics.
How do they distort the housing market? They don't want to live in my neighborhood so my home's value isn't directly affected by them.
OR... Are you claiming that they snap up housing as investments, forcing prices up? Is that it? Because if it is, you just proved why you want a lot of rich people buying stuff that the poorer folks like you produce...
in our country alone the poorest of the poor are still better off than the rich in many places around the world.
This statement is only true if by "many places around the world" you mean those few remaining primitive tribes in a south american jungle or chunk of rock in the south pacific.
How about Venezuela? The rich and poor are starving down there you know..
Look, your best argument is that this wasn't gross negligence. Why? Because this boils down to opinion and common sense and trying to determine the defendant's state of mind. Did Clinton care becomes the question...
I don't think she cared about the law or the rules. She sure ignored a bunch of them. Remember, she ignored the private E-mail server being used for official government business, although she signed a memo reprimanding one of her ambassadors for this very thing. She knew doing official business on her private server was illegal, she just didn't care. I presume that she didn't care about classified material handling either. Why? Because it's consistent with her actions and consistent with her attitude to other laws she openly ignored.
All of these arguments would be valid in a criminal trial... Would they convince the jury to find gross negligence? Who knows, but there is a chance it would and if we live in a nation of laws equally applied, she should have been charged, gone to trial and had the jury decide.
How many different studies will we have that don't agree about what's happening before we realize that we don't really know?
Somebody needs to make a study about how many *different* conclusions have been made in the last 20 years and how those studies have faired when compared to reality. I'm just going to guess that two things are true. 1. The ones the press cover and are most often cited by activists are the most inaccurate over time. And 2. Not one study, if old enough to verify, shows the dire consequences we are routinely told about.
n. carelessness which is in reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, and is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence, but it is just shy of being intentionally evil. If one has borrowed or contracted to take care of another's property, then gross negligence is the failure to actively take the care one would of his/her own property. If gross negligence is found by the trier of fact (judge or jury), it can result in the award of punitive damages on top of general and special damages.
Clinton was very careful to "filter" her E-Mails when she finally was ordered to provide them. She had her legal team go through them and only provided the ones *she* found relevant. She didn't exercise this same care with classified information.
I'm sure you can make the connection to what I'm saying here.
And I suggest you take a look at the law that Comey was discussing when he let Clinton skate. The law clearly states that inadvertent failure to follow the law becomes criminal negligence if you repeatedly fail to handle classified correctly. Intent to violate the law is NOT required, but persistent failures to exercise proper care is. So even if you don't intend to break the law, you can still be charged if your behavior is negligent.
Same way a drunk can be tried for criminally negligent manslaughter for killing somebody with their car while driving drunk.
Yea, you don't get it do you.. Mistakes happen from time to time, nobody's perfect... So yes, it's a violation of the law, but it's not usually considered criminal behavior if it only happens occasionally and it's reported and an effort to avoid making the mistake in the future is made.
What's criminal is when those mistakes keep happening because you don't care enough or you don't thing the rules apply to you. Gross negligence is when you *repeatedly* mishandle information because you don't care enough to do the right things. It's just not important enough to you and you don't take reasonable care or thought about what you are doing. You don't *intend* to mishandle stuff, but neither do you think the rules are important enough to know and follow.
It's like a drunk driver who crashes his car and kills somebody in the process. He didn't intend to kill anybody, but he did not care enough to not drive drunk, and it is his negligence that makes it a criminally negligent manslaughter charge.
Yes, this is a judgment call about the mindset of the accused, but there is evidence outlined in the law that helps you determine if it really was carelessness or simply a mistake or two. One of those tests is "how often" did it happen. Repeated "mistakes" quickly become negligence...
In case you haven't noticed, broadcasting media (TV and Radio) has been hitting the skids along with the news papers. One possible exception is "talk" radio. They are all on the same flight path, fighting with online competition and internet alternatives and will suffer the same fate. The writing is on the wall for broadcast TV, trust me.
For Pete's sake, that's what we have now, or nearly so. News is nearly single perspective now and owned/controlled by a handful of like minded people.
The only fly in the single source ointment is the internet's low cost of entry into the new business. All you need is a couple of dollars and some time and you (YES YOU) can have a web presence like the New York Times... Who cares if you provide accurate information, they certainly don't.
One mistake doesn't meet the legal standard of gross negligence that Clinton was guilty of. She REPATEDLY sent classified information though her private E-mail server, repeatedly breaking two very specific laws she simply didn't care about.
SpaceX seems to be actually making money, though being privately held it's hard to know... So I'm guessing it won't be as bad there.
There is also the possibility of doing an IPO, though I think at this point they know the investors wouldn't make enough back to cover their investment. However, if you see an IPO with less than a billion in market capitalization, THEN be worried because the ax is going to fall.
I've worked in places like this... Horrible places to work.
I worked at a now defunct Telco that routinely let the bottom 5% or so go each year, depending on how the numbers looked. Where it was good to dump the chaff, they often didn't consider the whole picture when they did this. I helped maintain the software for their telemarketing efforts and I knew one of their representatives who for three quarters had blown the doors off his "plan". In fact, as % of his plan he was their highest producer for 9 months of the year. Now if you exceed your plan in a quarter, they keep increasing your plan, so by the forth quarter, he didn't do so well, had some health issues which kept him off the phones and ended up in the bottom few percent and got let go. They where idiots..
The place was rife with back stabbing and sabotage as everybody clambered to stay at the top of the heap. It was a horrible place to work.
The short sellers have been consistently wrong on Tesla for years now. It's cost them a bundle.
Yea, but now we have layoffs happening.... This is new for Tesla. Of course, profits would be new for Tesla, as would actually selling cars in sufficient volume to remain viable would be new too. This is only going to get worse until they start selling cars...
I'm guessing their ability to raise cash to keep paying their labor costs is starting to become an issue and somebody in management took the adult role and started to readjust their cost structures. Cash flow is king, and more profitable business fail from cash flow issues than anything else.
And what do you think the Civil war was about? Yea, it didn't have *anything* at all to do with the divergence between our pledge in our foundational document (All men are created equal) and our practice of allowing slavery. No, we didn't lead the industrialized world by doing away with slavery.. Not at all... No, nearly a million died for some squabbles over who got elected president and the Civil war had *nothing* at all to do with slavery.....But actually it did have everything to do with that now didn't it?
We didn't start WW1, nor did we start WW2, in fact we attempted to stay out of both of these wars, almost too long in both cases. We didn't have anything to do with how or why the shooting started. But, it became apparent that freedom was under attack, for both us and our allies and left us with no other choice but to step in, spill our blood and treasure on foreign soil to maintain freedom. True to our creed, as a nation, we then returned the land we liberated with our treasure and blood to it's previous owners so they could enjoy their God given freedom, freedom WE paid for and won FOR them, because we as a nation believe in freedom and self determination.
It takes a great nation, guided by great principles, to do such things as these. To send our young men to die, not to protect our territory, but protect the cause of freedom for others. To fight ourselves, for freedom's sake. To return territory back to the aggressors in a wars we didn't start, but where forced to participate in.
Maybe the picked folks based on their BMI? Gather the top 2% based on BMI and let hem go and I'll bet it's massive... Got to save some on that health plan..
Ok. Ok.. It's a joke.... And I can make this joke because my BMI is too high..
Slashdot Mirror
That's what Siri is doing in there, sorting my photos... She gives me the creeps....
It's a fools errand to try and keep an employee who has started looking for other work, even if they seem irreplaceable. There is little the employer can do to stop the move. Chances are employees who are looking to leave, will, regardless of what you do. Best you can do is assist the employee with a smooth transition and hopefully get them to honestly tell you why they are making the choice to leave.
It's also a bad idea for an employee to make ANY obvious moves about their desire to leave. Don't tell anybody that would put it in the rumor mill either. Be professional and give notice... NEVER burn the bridge. It's a small world.
You could always, you know, just... not use LinkedIn.
Excellent Advice... There is no good reason for it. Think of it as a quasi professional Facebook and trust what you read there with an even bigger grain of salt. There is little information there, certainly no information I'd trust.
I don't want to work for any employer who thinks checking my LinkedIn profile is even part of a background check anyway...
Betamax had potential too...
That was actually used by broadcast operations... It was the "professional" standard.. Toslink is not really a professional standard, at least not any more. It doesn't carry enough channels and suffers from being dependent on optical cabling. AES50 works on standard network cabling and distances and carries 32 channels each way.
Toslink is being supplanted by HDMI and Bluetooth for a reason that's totally different than Sony's Betamax demise... Why run two cables when one or none works just fine?
What about just ensuring that people get their fair share?
A fair wage, fair hours, and a fair share. Once again, we must offer the American people a new deal; Hell, it's about time!
Socialism doesn't work. History proves this.
What we have is equal opportunity in this country and freedom in this country, it's called capitalism and by it's very nature it doesn't distribute outcome equally because individuals have different abilities and make varying efforts. Equal outcome is socialism, which leaves you enslaved and not free.
Think of a 100 yard dash. All the runners run the same race on the same track and the same distance, only one wins. Opportunity was equal, but only one wins. Why? Because the runners bring differing skills, abilities, training and may apply different effort. The race is fair, even if the outcome varies. Who'd run if everybody got the same trophy? (That's the issue with socialism, there is no incentive to make an effort)
Um... wealth is NOT a necessary precondition for producing new wealth. Yea, it helps, but wealth doesn't produce wealth, it only amplifies the thing that creates wealth.
You see, the dirty little secret to creating wealth is not having money, but working hard, taking risks and investing your time and efforts wisely. Another dirty secret is most of us will make multiple millions of dollars in our lives in salary so we *could* live like millionaires if we decided too. The problem though is most of us choose to live for today at a higher standard of living than we should so we never can parlay those multiple millions of dollars that pass though our hands into wealth.
So, you want to be wealthy? Earn it, do the things to make yourself wealthy, save capital by living beneath your means, work, take risks, invest and keep doing and learning until you become wealthy. Don't just sit on the couch and complain because others seem to be lucky and have stuff you cannot borrow enough to buy. Do something about it.
Infrastructure, affordable healthcare, not collecting income tax from people who earn less than even the average income, etc.
If only that where true...
Eventually, if we don't do something about this by either growing the economy or cutting spending, all those taxes you collect will not buy enough ink and paper to print the money you will need to pay interest on the debt...
When that happens, what's going to be the plight of the poor?
how rich other people are is un important.
Well, unless they have so much wealth that they can distort markets - particularly the housing market - or have disproportionate influence in politics.
How do they distort the housing market? They don't want to live in my neighborhood so my home's value isn't directly affected by them.
OR... Are you claiming that they snap up housing as investments, forcing prices up? Is that it? Because if it is, you just proved why you want a lot of rich people buying stuff that the poorer folks like you produce...
in our country alone the poorest of the poor are still better off than the rich in many places around the world. This statement is only true if by "many places around the world" you mean those few remaining primitive tribes in a south american jungle or chunk of rock in the south pacific.
How about Venezuela? The rich and poor are starving down there you know..
LOL.. That definition came from a law dictionary... http://dictionary.law.com/Defa...
Try again...
Look, your best argument is that this wasn't gross negligence. Why? Because this boils down to opinion and common sense and trying to determine the defendant's state of mind. Did Clinton care becomes the question...
Then you can apply the following: https://www.cordiscosaile.com/...
I don't think she cared about the law or the rules. She sure ignored a bunch of them. Remember, she ignored the private E-mail server being used for official government business, although she signed a memo reprimanding one of her ambassadors for this very thing. She knew doing official business on her private server was illegal, she just didn't care. I presume that she didn't care about classified material handling either. Why? Because it's consistent with her actions and consistent with her attitude to other laws she openly ignored.
All of these arguments would be valid in a criminal trial... Would they convince the jury to find gross negligence? Who knows, but there is a chance it would and if we live in a nation of laws equally applied, she should have been charged, gone to trial and had the jury decide.
How many different studies will we have that don't agree about what's happening before we realize that we don't really know?
Somebody needs to make a study about how many *different* conclusions have been made in the last 20 years and how those studies have faired when compared to reality. I'm just going to guess that two things are true. 1. The ones the press cover and are most often cited by activists are the most inaccurate over time. And 2. Not one study, if old enough to verify, shows the dire consequences we are routinely told about.
Goodbye "Florida man".. good riddance. It'd be a shame to lose Disney and Universal though.
Really? Waste of space we could be growing oranges in if you ask me...
Sure... http://www.digitalhistory.uh.e...
See Section 1 paragraph e.
Then you will need the following definition:
gross negligence
n. carelessness which is in reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, and is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence, but it is just shy of being intentionally evil. If one has borrowed or contracted to take care of another's property, then gross negligence is the failure to actively take the care one would of his/her own property. If gross negligence is found by the trier of fact (judge or jury), it can result in the award of punitive damages on top of general and special damages.
Clinton was very careful to "filter" her E-Mails when she finally was ordered to provide them. She had her legal team go through them and only provided the ones *she* found relevant. She didn't exercise this same care with classified information.
I'm sure you can make the connection to what I'm saying here.
And I suggest you take a look at the law that Comey was discussing when he let Clinton skate. The law clearly states that inadvertent failure to follow the law becomes criminal negligence if you repeatedly fail to handle classified correctly. Intent to violate the law is NOT required, but persistent failures to exercise proper care is. So even if you don't intend to break the law, you can still be charged if your behavior is negligent.
Same way a drunk can be tried for criminally negligent manslaughter for killing somebody with their car while driving drunk.
Yea, you don't get it do you.. Mistakes happen from time to time, nobody's perfect... So yes, it's a violation of the law, but it's not usually considered criminal behavior if it only happens occasionally and it's reported and an effort to avoid making the mistake in the future is made.
What's criminal is when those mistakes keep happening because you don't care enough or you don't thing the rules apply to you. Gross negligence is when you *repeatedly* mishandle information because you don't care enough to do the right things. It's just not important enough to you and you don't take reasonable care or thought about what you are doing. You don't *intend* to mishandle stuff, but neither do you think the rules are important enough to know and follow.
It's like a drunk driver who crashes his car and kills somebody in the process. He didn't intend to kill anybody, but he did not care enough to not drive drunk, and it is his negligence that makes it a criminally negligent manslaughter charge.
Yes, this is a judgment call about the mindset of the accused, but there is evidence outlined in the law that helps you determine if it really was carelessness or simply a mistake or two. One of those tests is "how often" did it happen. Repeated "mistakes" quickly become negligence...
In case you haven't noticed, broadcasting media (TV and Radio) has been hitting the skids along with the news papers. One possible exception is "talk" radio. They are all on the same flight path, fighting with online competition and internet alternatives and will suffer the same fate. The writing is on the wall for broadcast TV, trust me.
Increased reputation won't help..
For Pete's sake, that's what we have now, or nearly so. News is nearly single perspective now and owned/controlled by a handful of like minded people.
The only fly in the single source ointment is the internet's low cost of entry into the new business. All you need is a couple of dollars and some time and you (YES YOU) can have a web presence like the New York Times... Who cares if you provide accurate information, they certainly don't.
I have to admit... I was thinking of this event when I wrote my fictional story..
Nope..
One mistake doesn't meet the legal standard of gross negligence that Clinton was guilty of. She REPATEDLY sent classified information though her private E-mail server, repeatedly breaking two very specific laws she simply didn't care about.
SpaceX seems to be actually making money, though being privately held it's hard to know... So I'm guessing it won't be as bad there.
There is also the possibility of doing an IPO, though I think at this point they know the investors wouldn't make enough back to cover their investment. However, if you see an IPO with less than a billion in market capitalization, THEN be worried because the ax is going to fall.
Federal subsidies subside, layoffs begin... (Says the news at 11)
I've worked in places like this... Horrible places to work.
I worked at a now defunct Telco that routinely let the bottom 5% or so go each year, depending on how the numbers looked. Where it was good to dump the chaff, they often didn't consider the whole picture when they did this. I helped maintain the software for their telemarketing efforts and I knew one of their representatives who for three quarters had blown the doors off his "plan". In fact, as % of his plan he was their highest producer for 9 months of the year. Now if you exceed your plan in a quarter, they keep increasing your plan, so by the forth quarter, he didn't do so well, had some health issues which kept him off the phones and ended up in the bottom few percent and got let go. They where idiots..
The place was rife with back stabbing and sabotage as everybody clambered to stay at the top of the heap. It was a horrible place to work.
The short sellers have been consistently wrong on Tesla for years now. It's cost them a bundle.
Yea, but now we have layoffs happening.... This is new for Tesla. Of course, profits would be new for Tesla, as would actually selling cars in sufficient volume to remain viable would be new too. This is only going to get worse until they start selling cars...
I'm guessing their ability to raise cash to keep paying their labor costs is starting to become an issue and somebody in management took the adult role and started to readjust their cost structures. Cash flow is king, and more profitable business fail from cash flow issues than anything else.
So I'm not selling short, I'm buying puts...
And what do you think the Civil war was about? Yea, it didn't have *anything* at all to do with the divergence between our pledge in our foundational document (All men are created equal) and our practice of allowing slavery. No, we didn't lead the industrialized world by doing away with slavery.. Not at all... No, nearly a million died for some squabbles over who got elected president and the Civil war had *nothing* at all to do with slavery.....But actually it did have everything to do with that now didn't it?
We didn't start WW1, nor did we start WW2, in fact we attempted to stay out of both of these wars, almost too long in both cases. We didn't have anything to do with how or why the shooting started. But, it became apparent that freedom was under attack, for both us and our allies and left us with no other choice but to step in, spill our blood and treasure on foreign soil to maintain freedom. True to our creed, as a nation, we then returned the land we liberated with our treasure and blood to it's previous owners so they could enjoy their God given freedom, freedom WE paid for and won FOR them, because we as a nation believe in freedom and self determination.
It takes a great nation, guided by great principles, to do such things as these. To send our young men to die, not to protect our territory, but protect the cause of freedom for others. To fight ourselves, for freedom's sake. To return territory back to the aggressors in a wars we didn't start, but where forced to participate in.
Maybe the picked folks based on their BMI? Gather the top 2% based on BMI and let hem go and I'll bet it's massive... Got to save some on that health plan..
Ok. Ok.. It's a joke.... And I can make this joke because my BMI is too high..