The kids grow at the usual rate of 1 year to a year, and the movies are coming out about 1 1/2 years apart. In the first one, some of them (at least Hermione) were younger than the part they were playing. The kids in the storys are also a year older with each story, so if you consider 7 movies at 1 1/2 years each, that's 10.5 years to finish, which means when the last one is DONE, they'll be about 3.5 years older, assuming they started when they were the same age as their characters. But, again, some actors are younger than their characters, and the first two came out only 1 year apart.
There's also the difference of their age when they start filming a movie and their age when it is released, about a year and a half later. For instance, when I mentioned Hermoine's age (I remember seeing it in the "What Happened Today" column in the newspaper), she was a year or so behind her movie age at the time of release. Even if you don't take that into account, assuming the kids ages matched when they started filming, at the end, they'll be 21 playing 18 year olds. That has happened quite often in TV and film.
So, yes, the actors are aging fast, but you have to remember the characters are aging, too. It is a bit hard to get used to, since we see the characters in "snapshots" spaced a year to year and a half apart, and if you're used to watching a kid grow up, it's so gradual you don't notice it as much. In the latest movie, they should be 14, and I don't think the characters look too far off.
Teens also tend to grow much more when they're 12-16. Often you don't see quite as much of a change from 16-18, so if they look okay for the next movie, I think they'd be fine in the last 2.
While I LOVE programming in Perl, and enjoy Java (the only two languages we use), and I like working with my clients (most of whom hardly ever call, since everything runs so smoothly), as long as we've got that as part of the business, it means I, and others, have to consider things like checking regular log reports to make sure everything runs well, as well as dealing with clients who somehow find another bug.
Then there's the nature of data mining. If a source changes their HTML layout, it needs immediate attention (and even if I'm "unreachable" on vacation, I hear about it and am on edge until I know it's resolved). If, by chance, a source disappears, we have to move quickly to replace that source, or lose the customers.
That's the biggest part of the worries. Even with it automated, a data source can go bad, and if it's unique, we lose that data. I'll be much happier when that is someone else's problem. When that happens, I'll have the money, it'll be in a trust fund for me and the vid/movie biz, and all I have to worry about are the things I've wanted to focus on for my whole life. I dont' want to sound cold, but once I sell it, if a data source dries up, it is not my problem or worry.
Windows 2k has been out only 5 years, OpenOffice 2.0 isn't even out, and, while Debian thinks Sarge will go stable at month's end, those of us who have been watching expect it on a VERY cold day...
I have mixed feelings about Berman. I came damn close to writing for Trek, even pitched stories to Ron Moore (my agent had helped Ron get started and worked with Okuda and Sternbach, and was even mentioned in a thank you or two in their books). I don't know how much of the chance I had was because of or in spite of Berman.
I do think Michael Piller did a good job (and I'm told he's the one that eventually read some of my work and liked it -- when my agent called and asked if I still wanted to pitch, she said, "I was having lunch with Michael the other day," and I cut her off and said, "Michael who?" When she said, "Piller," as if I should have known, I coughed, choked on the water I was drinking, spewed it, and fell back against the counter in surprise).
Basically I keep the company small, since every employee is that much less that goes in the pot for movie making and the trust fund that I want to establish to keep the production biz going (it's also less I can spend if I need/want to), so it's a small, interesting team, and I know when certain movies come out, we won't get a damn thing done anyway, so we might as well make a day out of it.
Thank you for your resume. We want to make sure potential employees have experience with the software we use. Could you please submit proof of of at least:
- 7 years experience on Windows 2000 - 2 years experience on OpenOffice 2.0 - 1 year experience with Debian Sarge since it went stable
-------- Seriously, I don't want to do much more hiring with the data mining business. I'm a writer by avocation. The data mining is mostly automated, so once the income goes high enough, I'll sell it and use the money to maintain the scripwriting and video production business -- that way I (and most of the people I work with) can do what we enjoy without having to worry about keeping a software program running.
My boss is the manager of a data mining company which has been working on branching out into video production over the past few years. (The entire point of starting the data mining was to pay for starting the video production company and to do it right, which included producing only quality scripts and making sure the employees could enjoy their work and focus only on producing a good product -- not on meeting deadlines.)
He is not a manager of a comic book store.
I should know.
I am my boss -- just in case you missed it from my comment previously, where I said:
Actually, I'm glad I have the job I do. The boss has already done the same thing he did 3 years ago: He declared the day St. Lucas day, closed down the business, and paid for everyone in the company to come along and see the movie.
We have strange holidays. In the past few years, we've had 3 St. Tolkein days, 3 St. Rowling days, a St. Roddenberry day, a few St. Warchowski Days, and even one or two St. Lee days (which he also called St. Stan-the-man days). Oh, and last Friday was St. Adams day, but there was some confusion about exactly when that day was, since everyone had towels wrapped around their heads so the ravenous bugblatter beast of Traal couldn't see us.
As for TV, broadcasters (including cablecasters and narrowcasters) are allowed 16 minutes of commercials per hour. So, by the time you factor in the opening and closing credits, yes, about 40-42 minutes of content.
I remember learning about scriptwriting from old Star Trek books I had when I was a teen ("Making of Star Trek" and "Trouble With Tribbles"), and learning that when Trek was made, 8 minutes (or less?) per hour were allowed for commercials. Somehow the fact that over 25% of airtime is no longer about storytelling and about selling products to make women think they have to be malnourished to look sexy just seems wrong.
I've got no problem with product placement. If it gets back to the way they used to advertise (I forgot the show, but I remember an early detective show that was sponsored by a tobacco company where the detective would always drop in to a shop and talk about the virtues of a good smoke for a bit in each episode) where the advertisment is "sneaked in" as a part of the script, I have an issue with that.
I've noticed a lot of responses show people have not thought things through. I've also seen a lot of responses in this topic that show posters think as long as they're right or the boss is wrong, everything will work out and they can do what they want.
They seem ignorant of the fact that the boss can do some nasty things, even if they're wrong, make things miserable for a departing employee, and even drag out giving him a check, and still avoid actually getting into trouble -- even when everything he's done is "wrong." It just doesn't pay to have anyone angry at you -- especially when they can do bad things to you. This idea that if you're right, you'll always win and come out ahead really only works on Toon Disney and Saturday Morning 'toons.
...Seriously. I can only speculate that something really bad happened to you, to be so fixated on that.
I've seen people green warranted, I've seen them picked up on charges that should have never been filed. I've seen people, while I was working in treatment, that ended up inside when they shouldn't. While rare, it happens, and it is not something that can always be straightened out immediately. For that person, it can be like living in a Hitchcock movie, where you're innocent, but you can't prove it until they let you.
I've never had it happen to me, it's one of those cases of having worked with the system and having been close enough to have seen it happen. It's not something that happens all the time, but it happens, and when it does, you won't be out in an hour and back to work.
I'm basically pointing out a worst case scenario to illustrate that while someone's issues are not your problem, their actions when they overreact to you could be your serious problem.
I've seen this system vary from company to company. In some it is clearly stated that vacation time cannot be used once one has given notice or during time of final notice. I know of one situation with a friend where she could not user her time and did not get paid for it. I don't remember the details, but she was aware of it before leaving, so it must have been in the terms of her contract.
As for the exit interview, it was your chance to tell them why you were fed up and have it entered in permanent documents (you could have even typed up your comments and submitted them as part of your response). It may have even been one of the terms of your employment that you had to give an exit interview.
I, too, am sorry you had a bad experience, but it also sounds like you did not look closely at the terms of employment. Is that possible? And why didn't you call the labor board (whatever name it goes by in your state) and ask them for help? Often just a simple question will result in a call that scares them enough that they'd rather pay you than face possible fines.
Um, no, I go back first to file suit against my former boss for what he did to me. The fasle accusation(s), the lawyers fees, punative damages, etc.
Do you really think it'll be that easy? You can file a suit, he can hire a lawyer and he can just keep postponing at ever level (just like SCO and IBM). It'll take you years to get anywhere, and you're assuming you'll win. There's a good chance you won't. Even if you do, you might have to pay a retainer that could amount to more than you can afford.
He may be morally wrong, but that doesn't mean he can't do it, and it doesn't mean you have the means to get back at him. The chances are more likely that he'll exhaust your, and your lawyer's, patience and resources before you nail him -- and if you finally do nail him, the price per hour (or day or year) that you finally get for all the time you've put in will, except in a rare case, amount to almost nothing. Say you spend 3-5 years pursuing this. You might, after all is said and done, get a ruling that gives you $20,000. Great, you say, but you have no idea what you'll have to go through in that time -- the number of ups and downs, reversals, court appearances, and other problems you'll face.
The problem with black and white thinking like that is that the world is not only in shades of grey, but in a rainbow of color.
Yup. Just what you'd tell them if you, say, got into a car accident and got sued by the other driver and needed time off.
I wish I could be a fly on the wall to watch this. Are you really so niave that you think 1) The boss will believe your story?, 2) That he won't suddenly re-think hiring you? 3) That, as an employer he will see your side instead of the old bosses?
If you, as a new employee, miss a day (or part of a day), and tell them it is because you were in jail, do you really think you'll be there in a month? By the time you finish explaining, your new boss will think you're blaming your old boss for your problems. It won't be a "us against the old boss" thing. A manager is almost certainly going to take the side of another manager against an employee instead of siding with an employee against his former manager. There's also the adage that what an employee did in his old job is what he's likely to do for you, so if you tell him, you're starting your new job with a huge cloud of doubt over your head.
But, on the other hand, why take it to that point? Why make someone angry at you so you've got one more person out to get you? Is that something you want?
Why pay a lawyer when there are other ways to accomplish the same thing for free -- and just as likely to work? (Let's face it -- if the guy is unstable, he can stall a lawyer more than he can stall the labor board by just asking for continuances.)
I don't know how unstable this guy is, but he an go so far as to file either one against someone if he perceives that person as having done him wrong. That may sound extreme, but, again, this guy does sound unstable and I've seen situations escalate rapidly when on or both parties gets angry.
I've seen people say, "He has to pay you," or "He has no grounds to not pay you," or "He can't do that." It seems a lot of people are basing their ideas on right or wrong, and they're forgetting that the boss can do quite a bit. It doesn't matter if he's right or wrong. What matters is how the boss perceives his own position and if he is unstable, there is a good chance he will really believe that the employee has done something wrong. He's already accusing him of what amounts to espionage. All he has to do is believe he is right, and he'll find a way to hold back a pay check as long as possible, even delaying his responses the labor board, or filing a warrant to sue the employee for what he thinks was stolen, or filing an arrest warrant if he believes he has proof actual items, money, or trade secrets were stolen.
None of those things are right, but if he believes he is justified, he can do them, and cause so much trouble for the employee he could even get him fired from that new job by keeping him so tied up for the first few days of the new job that he can't even be there.
That's a few interesting stories about your boss. What shocks me is that people always forget the old addage that when there's one finger point at something, there are four fingers pointing back at the person pointing. For example, the four hour meetings say nothing about you and your peers, but they say a LOT about your boss. The same with his statement to your wife -- it doesn't reflect on her at all, but it says volumes about him.
The man you describe is very insecure. He probably wakes up every morning feeling he isn't nearly as good as he wishes he were. He's probably perpetually scared that today is the day everyone will find out how scared he is and that he isn't what he wants everyone to believe is. Just think -- there's no need to wish for revenge on such a person. For him, waking up every morning and facing a full day of living with himself is a hell worse than any revenge I could ever wish on anyone.
And, again, if he blows up, he's angry. If he's angry, he'll want to act on it. It's not your responsibility to keep him happy, but if he gets angry at you, he can do a lot of things to make you miserable. If he files a warrant, do you want to be in jail or arranging bail on what should be your first day of a new job?
It's not your job to keep him happy, but it is also wise not to do things that will egg him on. This isn't about who has what right or responsibility. It's about understanding how people behaving and handling the situation with enough maturity to not make it worse.
So, again, why make him angry, since you don't gain anything from it, and you may find it causes you a lot of trouble.
Is that assuming the company is big enough to have a legal department? Or that the boss isn't the company owner? (Or the owner's brother-in-law?)
You're right, it's not okay to withhold. But people often do things that aren't okay. It's also best not to use other "force" until the boss has actually "officially" said he'll withhold the check, or does. Then there's many things that can be done -- and the last thing I'd do is contact a lawyer (and that's from someone with a good number of lawyer friends and clients).
But the many nasty things the boss can do because of his issues are. So if you want to ignore his problems, fine, but if that leads to him making things worse for you, then it is your fault. If you (that's a generic "you") make an unstable boss like this upset, he can do quite a bit to hurt you -- including file warrants over accounts, theft of office supplies, and many other things. Yes, you'll get it straight -- after spending time in jail, arranging bail, and giving up several days of your life. Yes, you MIGHT be able to sue for false arrest, but that may or may not make a difference and, in the mean time, you've had to deal with these problems while trying to start a new job.
So while his issues are not YOUR problem, they can lead to his actions causing your problem, and possibly even costing you that new job. He doesn't need a valid reason to not pay the employee. He just doesn't have to pay him. He can ignore HR (assuming the company is big enough to have HR), ignore his boss for a long time, and even drag out responses to the labor board. You can gloat and insist on the contract, but it is just possible, when you're dealing with an unstable person, that he can refuse to act and drag out giving that last check to you for a LONG time -- making it miserable for you through the whole thing.
Lawyers charge money -- even for a letter. It doesn't hurt a mature person to be polite and not threaten. When and if the boss actually witholds or "officially" states he'll withhold the check, then there are a number of things to do before dealing with a lawyer. If the boss is unstable, and he sees such a letter (from a lawyer), it may just make him angry enough to withhold the check, drag out responses to the labor board, and to ask for continuations of any court case until you've spent more than the amount of the check to get it.
So, again, why ignore the possibility that he has issues, when it is likely to just cause him to make more trouble? What do you win?
1) The boss can hold back the check until he's legally forced to pay, which could take weeks or months. 2) This boss, from what we've seen, shows many signs of being unstable. Violence is even a possibility. 3) The manager can swear out a warrant for any number of reasons. They may be false, but by the time it's straightened out, it might be after a night or two in jail. (And you can't always sue for false arrest.) 4) We dont' know how big a company is, so there may be no HR department or anyone with authority over this person, so he can easily lose records or time slips. 5) Sometimes a new job is contigent on the new job checking, either after acceptance of the job, or after leaving the last one, on performance at the old job. 6) While an offer has been made, it is possible it could be retracted if they hear he didn't bother to work through the notice he gave. 7) There are any of a number of other ways a boss who has lost his temper can make life miserable.
You never win by making someone angry. All it means is there is just one more person out there who wants to see you hurt. What is the point in having that?
I was making the assumption that this manager, while superfically unreasonable, is fundamentally capable of rational thought, while you're reminding us that that assumption may not be valid.
That's about it. Thanks -- you summarized it MUCH better than I did.
It's also important to remember a person like this may show rational thought in many areas, but still be emotionally unbalanced in others.
Yes, I agree about a reputation being important, and this boss can hurt it, but from what we have, it seems most people around him are aware that the boss has issues. I would also think that people who worked with him for a while would easily know the score. Yes, the manager does have a weapon, but if everyone is aware he is toons (no, that was never a term we used technically!), it is less effective.
FWIW, in the job I mentioned, the firm had been around for over 20 years. At one time it had a good reputation, but over the past 10 years they had earned a reputation in their area (which was a poor area of houses as old as pre-civil war and was undergoing gentrification) as being cheap, cheating the tenent, and even abusing their authority. My boss, and his boss (the owner) were largely responsible for that. There were only the three of us in the company, and about 6 months after I started, the owner died. About 5 months later, with my boss running the company and the executrice (sp?) of the will still not having sold the company, I found out I would not get a paycheck that week -- legal problems, the estate being in debt, etc. While they admitted owning me, they did not have the money to pay. I asked how much they were selling the company for, and got on the phone. I seriously considered talking to my family, getting the backing, buying the company, and firing my boss.
This is appropos because my boss was largely responsible for the bad reputation of the company and many people in the area had dealt with him and specifically cursed him in public (and quite often!). I made a lot of calls and found out that in the 11 months I had been there, I had developed quite a reputation. I never bragged or badmouthed my company or boss, but the whole area basically had the attitude of, "Don't deal with the company, but if you have to, deal with him -- he'll treat you as fair as you can, unless his boss won't let him."
In less than a year, while I was working for a company with a crappy reputation, everyone in the area basically knew I would stick to my word and they could trust me, while nobody trusted my boss (who, at almost 50, was known to run out of the front office and literally hide in a closet when certain tenents or property owners came in to handle business).
So, while I'm bias, and speaking of a unique situation, would I would think most people will know the score and separate the boss's anger from the employee's responsibility. They've already had a lot of time to see what's going on. And, if he maintains his dignity, often it is possible to make sure you act properly as the other person gets more and more irrational, then, without saying anything negative, you've held up, and the other person has ruined their rep by getting angry because he wouldn't play their game.
This is only one of MANY posts about the last paycheck. Some go so far as to say sue him. Some say talk to HR, but the company might be so small the boss might own it.
Since the boss is emotionally unstable (I mentioned that earlier in this thread), it might be unwise to mention anything about the check ahead of time. Go by to pick it up at the regular time, as you always would, as if nothing were wrong. If it's not there, ask him about it. If he tries holding it back, then it is time to take action. You're best off being understated. Just shrug and say, "Okay, I'll take it up with the Labor Board, under section xxx" (if you can cite a section, that might help).
If there is an HR department, go there first, if not, or after HR, then go to the state (or other appropriate authority) and file a complaint. Make sure you have a copy of the letter or form. It might help to show it to the boss, and that may be all you need, but if he is volitile, just stay away and wait until the authorities handle it.
If he "officially" tells you ahead of time he's withholding it (instead of just threatening), ask him why and see if you can get it in writing. In either case, document it clearly, write up a letter to complain to either HR or the labor board, and, on the last day, bring it up before you leave. Again, be understated, but know that you WILL get the check, it's just a question of when and whether he gives it to you or has to deal with HR or the authorities. Don't be cocky, just sure. If necessary, tell him what you've been told by HR or the labor board. Don't be a know it all, but say just enough to let him know you have resources.
Now, on the other hand, if at any time in this process he starts to act unstable, GET OUT. Your goal should be to get the check, not to confront him, piss him off, or prove to him you're right. If you can keep your ego out of this, you'll do great. If you let your ego lead you, you'll end up in a blow out with him, and it'll make it even harder to get the check.
OK...let me be a little clearer here. I never advocated that the writer challenge the manager's sanity. In fact, personal attacks like this will most certainly only make the situation immeasurably worse.
Maybe not, but it all depends on how the boss perceives it. For example, soon after I left teaching in treatment programs, I worked as a property manager for someone in serious need of therapy. He was an alcoholic in denial, as well as gay and in denial (he had relationships, but went to absurd lengths to hide them -- it would have been comical if this person wasn't so sick). One time a property owner called up, asking me a ton of questions about a problem with one of his properties we managed. It turned out later that the problem was caused because my boss (the drunk) had not done his job. I didn't know that at the time, so when the boss (who was in the room listening) didn't hear me take full blame for everything immediately, once I hung up, he started yelling at me, saying I screwed up and was blaming him -- and that I was out to get him and his job.
If you want to analyze it, he knew he screwed up, but couldn't accept it, so since he "knew" it was his fault, even without me knowing it -- or accusing, or anything, in his eyes, since I did not just roll over and take it, he assumed I knew it was him, and was trying to blame him. To you and I, it doesn't make sense, but to him, it did.
I'm not trying to argue with you, but I am pointing out that there is enough to make me (a former pro in dealing with people who need treatment) suspect there is a problem with this boss. What you and I see as a challenge, the boss very likely will see as an attack. It doesn't have to be an attack, it doesn't have to look like one -- all it takes to set a person like this off is for him, in his twisted mind, to see it as an attack. I've seen many people in treatment (or in need of treatment) who have lied through their teeth, and all it took was one person even vaguely suggesting one of their lies was not 100% correct to set that person off.
Yes, he's making false accusations, but in the post, the writer made it clear the clients and employees knew the boss was nuts. If he can gracefully difuse the situation, and continue to act with integrity, none of them will have any question who is professional and trustworthy. Don't act under the assumption that because someone is calling names, those names reflect at all on the "callee". More than anything, and this seems especially true in this case, they make the boss look unreasonable and unprofessional, and as long as the person being insulted acts with dignity and integrity, he will look better (especially in the long run) by not attacking.
It's like if a kid attacks you -- if you deck him, you look terrible. If you maintain your dignity and do as little as possible to fend him off, you look much better. That's because we all know the kid is at a disadvantage, and here it seems quite obvious the boss is like a kid -- at least emotionally.
Normally I would agree with you, but this boss seems unstable, and with such a person, as I said (and it bears repeating), something that, to you and I, seems not only reasonable but also appropriate could be perceived as an attack by him -- especially if it comes anywhere near threatening his twisted perception of reality.
...while he initially was understanding, he has since starting making accusations of conspiracy, deceit, and has otherwise attempted to make me look bad in front of employees and long-time clients.
There is no excuse for this sort of behavior. Period. Next time he tries to do it, confront him. Remember, at this point, he needs you a lot more than you need him.
Speaking from a point of view of someone who spent years working with people in therapy, it sounds like this person has some issues that go deeper than the anger and frustration most people deal with. While I would normally advocate standing up for yourself (which isn't necessarily a confrontation), that fact that you start by saying he's always been a little nuts makes me suspect any confrontation will blow up.
In simple terms, it sounds like he's in denial over what's going on and blames you. In his mind, he probably already sees you as disloyal and even out to get him. This is not a reasonable view, but everything you say fits with that possibility. If that is so, anything you do will be viewed as an attack, and only add fuel to his fire of hate. So if you confront him, there's a chance he could blow up, start calling you names, or just walking away, then burning you in some other way.
Only you can decide what is and is not important to you. At this point, he's made it clear he considers it okay to withhold your paycheck. I can't tell if it's a bluff, or if he's serious (from what little we have here), but be aware that he is likely holding it hostage. Normally a boss thinks he has control becasue he can fire someone or stop paying them. With only a short time left, he feels he can no longer control you, so he's using that paycheck as his way to make sure you stay in line.
While it sounds lame, you might be best to try to difuse the situations with humor -- just not at his expense. Or, if he trashes you in front of a crowd of employees or clients, and you feel a need to stick up for yourself, you can always say something like, "He's been treating me that way ever since I turned in my notice,' and try to make it into a joke. He won't take it well, though.
I don't use a croscut shredder, but I did get a shredder a while back. For me, it's largely to protect source code, client identity, things like that. Rarely am I shredding something that would include enough client information for it to be dangerous to a client.
When I do have to shread papers that include bank statements, or enough info about a client that it could be dangerous to that client, I put the shredder over another bin and shred. When that 2nd bin fills up, I dump it in the fireplace, get a few marshmallows, and roast them over the fire while burning the papers.
I think he actually got by with it on the first one because he was both writer and director, or was only fined because of that. I don't remember the details, but the DGA was NOT happy about the director's credit coming at the end, instead of being the last one before principle photography, as required and there was some leniency on Lucas because he held multiple positions.
Slashdot Mirror
The kids grow at the usual rate of 1 year to a year, and the movies are coming out about 1 1/2 years apart. In the first one, some of them (at least Hermione) were younger than the part they were playing. The kids in the storys are also a year older with each story, so if you consider 7 movies at 1 1/2 years each, that's 10.5 years to finish, which means when the last one is DONE, they'll be about 3.5 years older, assuming they started when they were the same age as their characters. But, again, some actors are younger than their characters, and the first two came out only 1 year apart.
There's also the difference of their age when they start filming a movie and their age when it is released, about a year and a half later. For instance, when I mentioned Hermoine's age (I remember seeing it in the "What Happened Today" column in the newspaper), she was a year or so behind her movie age at the time of release. Even if you don't take that into account, assuming the kids ages matched when they started filming, at the end, they'll be 21 playing 18 year olds. That has happened quite often in TV and film.
So, yes, the actors are aging fast, but you have to remember the characters are aging, too. It is a bit hard to get used to, since we see the characters in "snapshots" spaced a year to year and a half apart, and if you're used to watching a kid grow up, it's so gradual you don't notice it as much. In the latest movie, they should be 14, and I don't think the characters look too far off.
Teens also tend to grow much more when they're 12-16. Often you don't see quite as much of a change from 16-18, so if they look okay for the next movie, I think they'd be fine in the last 2.
While I LOVE programming in Perl, and enjoy Java (the only two languages we use), and I like working with my clients (most of whom hardly ever call, since everything runs so smoothly), as long as we've got that as part of the business, it means I, and others, have to consider things like checking regular log reports to make sure everything runs well, as well as dealing with clients who somehow find another bug.
Then there's the nature of data mining. If a source changes their HTML layout, it needs immediate attention (and even if I'm "unreachable" on vacation, I hear about it and am on edge until I know it's resolved). If, by chance, a source disappears, we have to move quickly to replace that source, or lose the customers.
That's the biggest part of the worries. Even with it automated, a data source can go bad, and if it's unique, we lose that data. I'll be much happier when that is someone else's problem. When that happens, I'll have the money, it'll be in a trust fund for me and the vid/movie biz, and all I have to worry about are the things I've wanted to focus on for my whole life. I dont' want to sound cold, but once I sell it, if a data source dries up, it is not my problem or worry.
I think you missed the joke...
Windows 2k has been out only 5 years, OpenOffice 2.0 isn't even out, and, while Debian thinks Sarge will go stable at month's end, those of us who have been watching expect it on a VERY cold day...
I have mixed feelings about Berman. I came damn close to writing for Trek, even pitched stories to Ron Moore (my agent had helped Ron get started and worked with Okuda and Sternbach, and was even mentioned in a thank you or two in their books). I don't know how much of the chance I had was because of or in spite of Berman.
I do think Michael Piller did a good job (and I'm told he's the one that eventually read some of my work and liked it -- when my agent called and asked if I still wanted to pitch, she said, "I was having lunch with Michael the other day," and I cut her off and said, "Michael who?" When she said, "Piller," as if I should have known, I coughed, choked on the water I was drinking, spewed it, and fell back against the counter in surprise).
Basically I keep the company small, since every employee is that much less that goes in the pot for movie making and the trust fund that I want to establish to keep the production biz going (it's also less I can spend if I need/want to), so it's a small, interesting team, and I know when certain movies come out, we won't get a damn thing done anyway, so we might as well make a day out of it.
Dear Everyone on Slashdot:
Thank you for your resume. We want to make sure potential employees have experience with the software we use. Could you please submit proof of of at least:
- 7 years experience on Windows 2000
- 2 years experience on OpenOffice 2.0
- 1 year experience with Debian Sarge since it went stable
--------
Seriously, I don't want to do much more hiring with the data mining business. I'm a writer by avocation. The data mining is mostly automated, so once the income goes high enough, I'll sell it and use the money to maintain the scripwriting and video production business -- that way I (and most of the people I work with) can do what we enjoy without having to worry about keeping a software program running.
I think you missed the point.
My boss is the manager of a data mining company which has been working on branching out into video production over the past few years. (The entire point of starting the data mining was to pay for starting the video production company and to do it right, which included producing only quality scripts and making sure the employees could enjoy their work and focus only on producing a good product -- not on meeting deadlines.)
He is not a manager of a comic book store.
I should know.
I am my boss -- just in case you missed it from my comment previously, where I said:
Ahhhhhh.
It's good to be the boss.
Actually, I'm glad I have the job I do. The boss has already done the same thing he did 3 years ago: He declared the day St. Lucas day, closed down the business, and paid for everyone in the company to come along and see the movie.
We have strange holidays. In the past few years, we've had 3 St. Tolkein days, 3 St. Rowling days, a St. Roddenberry day, a few St. Warchowski Days, and even one or two St. Lee days (which he also called St. Stan-the-man days). Oh, and last Friday was St. Adams day, but there was some confusion about exactly when that day was, since everyone had towels wrapped around their heads so the ravenous bugblatter beast of Traal couldn't see us.
Ahhhh.
It's good to be the boss.
As for TV, broadcasters (including cablecasters and narrowcasters) are allowed 16 minutes of commercials per hour. So, by the time you factor in the opening and closing credits, yes, about 40-42 minutes of content.
I remember learning about scriptwriting from old Star Trek books I had when I was a teen ("Making of Star Trek" and "Trouble With Tribbles"), and learning that when Trek was made, 8 minutes (or less?) per hour were allowed for commercials. Somehow the fact that over 25% of airtime is no longer about storytelling and about selling products to make women think they have to be malnourished to look sexy just seems wrong.
I've got no problem with product placement. If it gets back to the way they used to advertise (I forgot the show, but I remember an early detective show that was sponsored by a tobacco company where the detective would always drop in to a shop and talk about the virtues of a good smoke for a bit in each episode) where the advertisment is "sneaked in" as a part of the script, I have an issue with that.
I've noticed a lot of responses show people have not thought things through. I've also seen a lot of responses in this topic that show posters think as long as they're right or the boss is wrong, everything will work out and they can do what they want.
They seem ignorant of the fact that the boss can do some nasty things, even if they're wrong, make things miserable for a departing employee, and even drag out giving him a check, and still avoid actually getting into trouble -- even when everything he's done is "wrong." It just doesn't pay to have anyone angry at you -- especially when they can do bad things to you. This idea that if you're right, you'll always win and come out ahead really only works on Toon Disney and Saturday Morning 'toons.
I've seen people green warranted, I've seen them picked up on charges that should have never been filed. I've seen people, while I was working in treatment, that ended up inside when they shouldn't. While rare, it happens, and it is not something that can always be straightened out immediately. For that person, it can be like living in a Hitchcock movie, where you're innocent, but you can't prove it until they let you.
I've never had it happen to me, it's one of those cases of having worked with the system and having been close enough to have seen it happen. It's not something that happens all the time, but it happens, and when it does, you won't be out in an hour and back to work.
I'm basically pointing out a worst case scenario to illustrate that while someone's issues are not your problem, their actions when they overreact to you could be your serious problem.
I've seen this system vary from company to company. In some it is clearly stated that vacation time cannot be used once one has given notice or during time of final notice. I know of one situation with a friend where she could not user her time and did not get paid for it. I don't remember the details, but she was aware of it before leaving, so it must have been in the terms of her contract.
As for the exit interview, it was your chance to tell them why you were fed up and have it entered in permanent documents (you could have even typed up your comments and submitted them as part of your response). It may have even been one of the terms of your employment that you had to give an exit interview.
I, too, am sorry you had a bad experience, but it also sounds like you did not look closely at the terms of employment. Is that possible? And why didn't you call the labor board (whatever name it goes by in your state) and ask them for help? Often just a simple question will result in a call that scares them enough that they'd rather pay you than face possible fines.
My bad.
Sheesh. Just because I used to teach Algebra, people seem to think I can count.
Um, no, I go back first to file suit against my former boss for what he did to me. The fasle accusation(s), the lawyers fees, punative damages, etc.
Do you really think it'll be that easy? You can file a suit, he can hire a lawyer and he can just keep postponing at ever level (just like SCO and IBM). It'll take you years to get anywhere, and you're assuming you'll win. There's a good chance you won't. Even if you do, you might have to pay a retainer that could amount to more than you can afford.
He may be morally wrong, but that doesn't mean he can't do it, and it doesn't mean you have the means to get back at him. The chances are more likely that he'll exhaust your, and your lawyer's, patience and resources before you nail him -- and if you finally do nail him, the price per hour (or day or year) that you finally get for all the time you've put in will, except in a rare case, amount to almost nothing. Say you spend 3-5 years pursuing this. You might, after all is said and done, get a ruling that gives you $20,000. Great, you say, but you have no idea what you'll have to go through in that time -- the number of ups and downs, reversals, court appearances, and other problems you'll face.
The problem with black and white thinking like that is that the world is not only in shades of grey, but in a rainbow of color.
Yup. Just what you'd tell them if you, say, got into a car accident and got sued by the other driver and needed time off.
I wish I could be a fly on the wall to watch this. Are you really so niave that you think 1) The boss will believe your story?, 2) That he won't suddenly re-think hiring you? 3) That, as an employer he will see your side instead of the old bosses?
If you, as a new employee, miss a day (or part of a day), and tell them it is because you were in jail, do you really think you'll be there in a month? By the time you finish explaining, your new boss will think you're blaming your old boss for your problems. It won't be a "us against the old boss" thing. A manager is almost certainly going to take the side of another manager against an employee instead of siding with an employee against his former manager. There's also the adage that what an employee did in his old job is what he's likely to do for you, so if you tell him, you're starting your new job with a huge cloud of doubt over your head.
But, on the other hand, why take it to that point? Why make someone angry at you so you've got one more person out to get you? Is that something you want?
Why pay a lawyer when there are other ways to accomplish the same thing for free -- and just as likely to work? (Let's face it -- if the guy is unstable, he can stall a lawyer more than he can stall the labor board by just asking for continuances.)
warrant = arrest warrant
(or warrant in debt)
I don't know how unstable this guy is, but he an go so far as to file either one against someone if he perceives that person as having done him wrong. That may sound extreme, but, again, this guy does sound unstable and I've seen situations escalate rapidly when on or both parties gets angry.
I've seen people say, "He has to pay you," or "He has no grounds to not pay you," or "He can't do that." It seems a lot of people are basing their ideas on right or wrong, and they're forgetting that the boss can do quite a bit. It doesn't matter if he's right or wrong. What matters is how the boss perceives his own position and if he is unstable, there is a good chance he will really believe that the employee has done something wrong. He's already accusing him of what amounts to espionage. All he has to do is believe he is right, and he'll find a way to hold back a pay check as long as possible, even delaying his responses the labor board, or filing a warrant to sue the employee for what he thinks was stolen, or filing an arrest warrant if he believes he has proof actual items, money, or trade secrets were stolen.
None of those things are right, but if he believes he is justified, he can do them, and cause so much trouble for the employee he could even get him fired from that new job by keeping him so tied up for the first few days of the new job that he can't even be there.
That's a few interesting stories about your boss. What shocks me is that people always forget the old addage that when there's one finger point at something, there are four fingers pointing back at the person pointing. For example, the four hour meetings say nothing about you and your peers, but they say a LOT about your boss. The same with his statement to your wife -- it doesn't reflect on her at all, but it says volumes about him.
The man you describe is very insecure. He probably wakes up every morning feeling he isn't nearly as good as he wishes he were. He's probably perpetually scared that today is the day everyone will find out how scared he is and that he isn't what he wants everyone to believe is. Just think -- there's no need to wish for revenge on such a person. For him, waking up every morning and facing a full day of living with himself is a hell worse than any revenge I could ever wish on anyone.
And, again, if he blows up, he's angry. If he's angry, he'll want to act on it. It's not your responsibility to keep him happy, but if he gets angry at you, he can do a lot of things to make you miserable. If he files a warrant, do you want to be in jail or arranging bail on what should be your first day of a new job?
It's not your job to keep him happy, but it is also wise not to do things that will egg him on. This isn't about who has what right or responsibility. It's about understanding how people behaving and handling the situation with enough maturity to not make it worse.
So, again, why make him angry, since you don't gain anything from it, and you may find it causes you a lot of trouble.
Is that assuming the company is big enough to have a legal department? Or that the boss isn't the company owner? (Or the owner's brother-in-law?)
You're right, it's not okay to withhold. But people often do things that aren't okay. It's also best not to use other "force" until the boss has actually "officially" said he'll withhold the check, or does. Then there's many things that can be done -- and the last thing I'd do is contact a lawyer (and that's from someone with a good number of lawyer friends and clients).
His issues are not the employee's problem.
But the many nasty things the boss can do because of his issues are. So if you want to ignore his problems, fine, but if that leads to him making things worse for you, then it is your fault. If you (that's a generic "you") make an unstable boss like this upset, he can do quite a bit to hurt you -- including file warrants over accounts, theft of office supplies, and many other things. Yes, you'll get it straight -- after spending time in jail, arranging bail, and giving up several days of your life. Yes, you MIGHT be able to sue for false arrest, but that may or may not make a difference and, in the mean time, you've had to deal with these problems while trying to start a new job.
So while his issues are not YOUR problem, they can lead to his actions causing your problem, and possibly even costing you that new job. He doesn't need a valid reason to not pay the employee. He just doesn't have to pay him. He can ignore HR (assuming the company is big enough to have HR), ignore his boss for a long time, and even drag out responses to the labor board. You can gloat and insist on the contract, but it is just possible, when you're dealing with an unstable person, that he can refuse to act and drag out giving that last check to you for a LONG time -- making it miserable for you through the whole thing.
Lawyers charge money -- even for a letter. It doesn't hurt a mature person to be polite and not threaten. When and if the boss actually witholds or "officially" states he'll withhold the check, then there are a number of things to do before dealing with a lawyer. If the boss is unstable, and he sees such a letter (from a lawyer), it may just make him angry enough to withhold the check, drag out responses to the labor board, and to ask for continuations of any court case until you've spent more than the amount of the check to get it.
So, again, why ignore the possibility that he has issues, when it is likely to just cause him to make more trouble? What do you win?
Who cares if the boss blows up or not?
The employee does.
1) The boss can hold back the check until he's legally forced to pay, which could take weeks or months.
2) This boss, from what we've seen, shows many signs of being unstable. Violence is even a possibility.
3) The manager can swear out a warrant for any number of reasons. They may be false, but by the time it's straightened out, it might be after a night or two in jail. (And you can't always sue for false arrest.)
4) We dont' know how big a company is, so there may be no HR department or anyone with authority over this person, so he can easily lose records or time slips.
5) Sometimes a new job is contigent on the new job checking, either after acceptance of the job, or after leaving the last one, on performance at the old job.
6) While an offer has been made, it is possible it could be retracted if they hear he didn't bother to work through the notice he gave.
7) There are any of a number of other ways a boss who has lost his temper can make life miserable.
You never win by making someone angry. All it means is there is just one more person out there who wants to see you hurt. What is the point in having that?
I was making the assumption that this manager, while superfically unreasonable, is fundamentally capable of rational thought, while you're reminding us that that assumption may not be valid.
That's about it. Thanks -- you summarized it MUCH better than I did.
It's also important to remember a person like this may show rational thought in many areas, but still be emotionally unbalanced in others.
Yes, I agree about a reputation being important, and this boss can hurt it, but from what we have, it seems most people around him are aware that the boss has issues. I would also think that people who worked with him for a while would easily know the score. Yes, the manager does have a weapon, but if everyone is aware he is toons (no, that was never a term we used technically!), it is less effective.
FWIW, in the job I mentioned, the firm had been around for over 20 years. At one time it had a good reputation, but over the past 10 years they had earned a reputation in their area (which was a poor area of houses as old as pre-civil war and was undergoing gentrification) as being cheap, cheating the tenent, and even abusing their authority. My boss, and his boss (the owner) were largely responsible for that. There were only the three of us in the company, and about 6 months after I started, the owner died. About 5 months later, with my boss running the company and the executrice (sp?) of the will still not having sold the company, I found out I would not get a paycheck that week -- legal problems, the estate being in debt, etc. While they admitted owning me, they did not have the money to pay. I asked how much they were selling the company for, and got on the phone. I seriously considered talking to my family, getting the backing, buying the company, and firing my boss.
This is appropos because my boss was largely responsible for the bad reputation of the company and many people in the area had dealt with him and specifically cursed him in public (and quite often!). I made a lot of calls and found out that in the 11 months I had been there, I had developed quite a reputation. I never bragged or badmouthed my company or boss, but the whole area basically had the attitude of, "Don't deal with the company, but if you have to, deal with him -- he'll treat you as fair as you can, unless his boss won't let him."
In less than a year, while I was working for a company with a crappy reputation, everyone in the area basically knew I would stick to my word and they could trust me, while nobody trusted my boss (who, at almost 50, was known to run out of the front office and literally hide in a closet when certain tenents or property owners came in to handle business).
So, while I'm bias, and speaking of a unique situation, would I would think most people will know the score and separate the boss's anger from the employee's responsibility. They've already had a lot of time to see what's going on. And, if he maintains his dignity, often it is possible to make sure you act properly as the other person gets more and more irrational, then, without saying anything negative, you've held up, and the other person has ruined their rep by getting angry because he wouldn't play their game.
This is only one of MANY posts about the last paycheck. Some go so far as to say sue him. Some say talk to HR, but the company might be so small the boss might own it.
Since the boss is emotionally unstable (I mentioned that earlier in this thread), it might be unwise to mention anything about the check ahead of time. Go by to pick it up at the regular time, as you always would, as if nothing were wrong. If it's not there, ask him about it. If he tries holding it back, then it is time to take action. You're best off being understated. Just shrug and say, "Okay, I'll take it up with the Labor Board, under section xxx" (if you can cite a section, that might help).
If there is an HR department, go there first, if not, or after HR, then go to the state (or other appropriate authority) and file a complaint. Make sure you have a copy of the letter or form. It might help to show it to the boss, and that may be all you need, but if he is volitile, just stay away and wait until the authorities handle it.
If he "officially" tells you ahead of time he's withholding it (instead of just threatening), ask him why and see if you can get it in writing. In either case, document it clearly, write up a letter to complain to either HR or the labor board, and, on the last day, bring it up before you leave. Again, be understated, but know that you WILL get the check, it's just a question of when and whether he gives it to you or has to deal with HR or the authorities. Don't be cocky, just sure. If necessary, tell him what you've been told by HR or the labor board. Don't be a know it all, but say just enough to let him know you have resources.
Now, on the other hand, if at any time in this process he starts to act unstable, GET OUT. Your goal should be to get the check, not to confront him, piss him off, or prove to him you're right. If you can keep your ego out of this, you'll do great. If you let your ego lead you, you'll end up in a blow out with him, and it'll make it even harder to get the check.
OK...let me be a little clearer here. I never advocated that the writer challenge the manager's sanity. In fact, personal attacks like this will most certainly only make the situation immeasurably worse.
Maybe not, but it all depends on how the boss perceives it. For example, soon after I left teaching in treatment programs, I worked as a property manager for someone in serious need of therapy. He was an alcoholic in denial, as well as gay and in denial (he had relationships, but went to absurd lengths to hide them -- it would have been comical if this person wasn't so sick). One time a property owner called up, asking me a ton of questions about a problem with one of his properties we managed. It turned out later that the problem was caused because my boss (the drunk) had not done his job. I didn't know that at the time, so when the boss (who was in the room listening) didn't hear me take full blame for everything immediately, once I hung up, he started yelling at me, saying I screwed up and was blaming him -- and that I was out to get him and his job.
If you want to analyze it, he knew he screwed up, but couldn't accept it, so since he "knew" it was his fault, even without me knowing it -- or accusing, or anything, in his eyes, since I did not just roll over and take it, he assumed I knew it was him, and was trying to blame him. To you and I, it doesn't make sense, but to him, it did.
I'm not trying to argue with you, but I am pointing out that there is enough to make me (a former pro in dealing with people who need treatment) suspect there is a problem with this boss. What you and I see as a challenge, the boss very likely will see as an attack. It doesn't have to be an attack, it doesn't have to look like one -- all it takes to set a person like this off is for him, in his twisted mind, to see it as an attack. I've seen many people in treatment (or in need of treatment) who have lied through their teeth, and all it took was one person even vaguely suggesting one of their lies was not 100% correct to set that person off.
Yes, he's making false accusations, but in the post, the writer made it clear the clients and employees knew the boss was nuts. If he can gracefully difuse the situation, and continue to act with integrity, none of them will have any question who is professional and trustworthy. Don't act under the assumption that because someone is calling names, those names reflect at all on the "callee". More than anything, and this seems especially true in this case, they make the boss look unreasonable and unprofessional, and as long as the person being insulted acts with dignity and integrity, he will look better (especially in the long run) by not attacking.
It's like if a kid attacks you -- if you deck him, you look terrible. If you maintain your dignity and do as little as possible to fend him off, you look much better. That's because we all know the kid is at a disadvantage, and here it seems quite obvious the boss is like a kid -- at least emotionally.
Normally I would agree with you, but this boss seems unstable, and with such a person, as I said (and it bears repeating), something that, to you and I, seems not only reasonable but also appropriate could be perceived as an attack by him -- especially if it comes anywhere near threatening his twisted perception of reality.
...while he initially was understanding, he has since starting making accusations of conspiracy, deceit, and has otherwise attempted to make me look bad in front of employees and long-time clients.
There is no excuse for this sort of behavior. Period. Next time he tries to do it, confront him. Remember, at this point, he needs you a lot more than you need him.
Speaking from a point of view of someone who spent years working with people in therapy, it sounds like this person has some issues that go deeper than the anger and frustration most people deal with. While I would normally advocate standing up for yourself (which isn't necessarily a confrontation), that fact that you start by saying he's always been a little nuts makes me suspect any confrontation will blow up.
In simple terms, it sounds like he's in denial over what's going on and blames you. In his mind, he probably already sees you as disloyal and even out to get him. This is not a reasonable view, but everything you say fits with that possibility. If that is so, anything you do will be viewed as an attack, and only add fuel to his fire of hate. So if you confront him, there's a chance he could blow up, start calling you names, or just walking away, then burning you in some other way.
Only you can decide what is and is not important to you. At this point, he's made it clear he considers it okay to withhold your paycheck. I can't tell if it's a bluff, or if he's serious (from what little we have here), but be aware that he is likely holding it hostage. Normally a boss thinks he has control becasue he can fire someone or stop paying them. With only a short time left, he feels he can no longer control you, so he's using that paycheck as his way to make sure you stay in line.
While it sounds lame, you might be best to try to difuse the situations with humor -- just not at his expense. Or, if he trashes you in front of a crowd of employees or clients, and you feel a need to stick up for yourself, you can always say something like, "He's been treating me that way ever since I turned in my notice,' and try to make it into a joke. He won't take it well, though.
I don't use a croscut shredder, but I did get a shredder a while back. For me, it's largely to protect source code, client identity, things like that. Rarely am I shredding something that would include enough client information for it to be dangerous to a client.
When I do have to shread papers that include bank statements, or enough info about a client that it could be dangerous to that client, I put the shredder over another bin and shred. When that 2nd bin fills up, I dump it in the fireplace, get a few marshmallows, and roast them over the fire while burning the papers.
I think he actually got by with it on the first one because he was both writer and director, or was only fined because of that. I don't remember the details, but the DGA was NOT happy about the director's credit coming at the end, instead of being the last one before principle photography, as required and there was some leniency on Lucas because he held multiple positions.