Drunk driver = negligent, Asshole manager = not negligent
Yes, and that's my point. So, let me summarize:
Drunk driver ruins your life: you have recourse.
Asshole manager ruins your life: you have no recourse. Suck up and deal.
Get it now. I think the real problem you're having is you're assuming more drastic recourses than I'm suggesting.:) At this point, I'd be happy with ANY. At the moment, all we have now is to make sure to bring a shotgun when you return for a visit. But, that's not really very feasible, either.
So you do know why you were terminated, then? Which is it? Do you know or not know? If that's the case, try, "Well, I like to think of myself as a personable guy. I tend to get along with people. So I have to tell you I'm shocked to have to tell you that I left due to a personality conflict with my manager. I've gotten along fine with 9 other managers, but for whatever reason, things just did not work out with him. It was a difficult, but good learning experience for me in how to function constructively in case I am ever in that situation in the future." Anyhow, then you will look like less of an idiot. Assuming you don't bungle the rest of the interview.
Of course I do, it was because of something I do in my own time. It doesn't matter what the reason was, though. It's enough to know that it wasn't a valid reason. As for your statement, that's what I ended up going with. Problem is, in a dry market, doesn't matter how well you interview if you can't even find a place to put your resume.
For all I know, it did happen. Who cares?
Really? Are you really that callous and sadistic? Even if you didn't accept that it did happen, the fact that it COULD happen should bother you as a human being.
I suggest you move to a state that protects you from discrimination based on sexual preference
Why? Why should anyone have to move or change their lifestyle or even keep their sexual preferences in the dark for a job? It's a job. And, frankly, how is that single mother supposed to just pick up and leave the state? Leave their family behind? Wow, the things you'll do to get a job. How sore your ass must be.
Nine months of living expenses. Big difference.
Not really. You can trim off the excess, but again I ask why should I have to? I did my job, better than could be hoped for. I didn't steal company property or attack one of my coworkers, why do I have to change my lifestyle because of narrow-minded bigots? The American dream is that I work hard and well, and I keep my job and reap the benefits of my hard work. Just because you've given up on that and accept your lot in life doesn't mean others can't try to work towards it. I refuse to live in your dark, cold, callous world. Layoffs happen. Companies go out of business. This is how things work in the business world and no one's asking for "protection" from that. But, people need to be treated fairly and decently. Yes, "life's not fair". That doesn't mean we have to be, too. Life doesn't have a choice, we do. Don't you want something better for your daughter?
Most companies don't turn over staff unnecessarily.
Really? I had no idea that Slashdot was read on other planets. What is the color of the sky on your little world, BTW?
So you got screwed once. Big deal.
Okay, now I see the problem here, you're concentrating on one incident that happened to one person (me). My termination wasn't the reason I want the system changed, it just opened my eyes to how completely devoid of rights we have as employees. It's not just about being fired, it's about not losing my right to privacy or my right to live how I want or losing my free time because an employer only SAYS they give vacation time (in that they give it on the books, but they've got everyone so overworked they are never allowed to take that time). This is about employees being able to not only do their jobs in peace without the constant fear of being arbitrarily terminated, but also to not have to have a huge rainy day fund wasted because of it (yes, wasted is the proper word for it). Or, have to take any level of abuse because "you can leave any time", because it's not just one employer that does that, it's almost all of them. There are exceptions, but they're rare exceptions and not the norm.
Go into business for yourself. Oh, man, would you get slaughtered. Wow.
What does one have to do with the other? Because I'm not a puss
When I said that the drunk driver was guilty of a tort,
Exactly. that was my point.
your employer does not owe you a job
Never said they did, in fact said numerous times that they didn't.
I'm not sure how I can explain it any more clearly. Your analogy was bad and irrelevant. Such is life.
I don't know, we're both saying the same things, yet you seem to think I want a handout. Such is life when the media tells people how to think. I don't expect a lot from people, but I still try.
If there is "one LISTING a month" then clearly the supply of labor is far exceeding the demand and thus the value of your labor is strongly decreased.
Actually, it's due to websites like Monster, etc. It becomes child's play to find listings for your job skills in cities other than your own. It's funny, people need to relocate because there's no jobs left in their area because everyone relocated there. Instead of fighting within a limited pool of applicants, you now have to contend with the entire country. On interviewer told me they received 2600 applications for one posting within 3 hours. Regardless of all of that, we're not talking about the value/pay relationship. This is a disparity of rights conversation.
A rainy day fund is damn good advice. It will put some of the control back in your hands. You won't be so desperate for a paycheque that you have to put up with whatever crap your employer wants to dump on you. You can push back, maintain some self respect, and not be living in constant dread of losing your job.
Really? How's that work? I've got a rainy day fund, and I still worry about it on a day-to-day basis. Regardless of the number of praises I get from project managers and during reviews, I know all too well that it's all just to provide me with a false sense of security and that if my manager doesn't get laid one night, I could be on the way out. Hell, I don't even need a "white after labor day" argument...if I push back and attempt to maintain some self respect, I'm on my way out, too. Then I'd have to deplete my fund again, and when I get reemployed...I'm working just to replenish it for the first year or so. The whole time I'm cognizant of the fact that I no longer have that cushion. Screwed is screwed regargless of whether or not you lube your ass up first.
I know from experience that losing a job can be a kick in the nuts, and yes, I'm sure it sucks to be you. I know this all sounds cold, but this is reality, and reality seldom adjusts itself to suit our wishes.
Guess what? You CAN change reality, you just have to stop sitting back saying "Well, whattayagonnado?" Even still, this isn't "reality" doing this, this is people actively working to limit my rights. This is corporations having more control over my life than I do all the while telling me that my rights are equal to theirs. Bull. I'm a human, not a resource.
If you are injured by a drunk driver, you have the following at your disposal
Exactly. I have legal recourse at my disposal. I do not when wrongly terminated. Why? If you've got a rainy day fund, why can't we just tell people to stop whining when they get injured in a car accident and use their rainy day fund? How does it differ? It's not my fault they can't drive well enough. Why should I have to pay higher insurance premiums? Hell, we shouldn't have insurance at all. It's just a drain. If I didn't have to pay for all this insurance to protect me from other people, I'd have a much larger rainy day fund to take care of myself with.
Just as you can be the best driver in the world and still get in to an accident, you can be the best employee in the world and still get fired because your boss doesn't like the color of the buttons on your shirt. It hasn't happened to you yet, and I hope it never does. But, it happens every day, and it's increasing. It's increasing because employers are learning how advantageous it is to have the law on their side (the law is on their side, even if the rights are the same) and fools like you will defend their ability to do it for some demented reason. You wanna walk your merry way down to voluntary slavery, you go right ahead.
It's not even about termination. How 'bout invasion of privacy? Did you have to take a drug test for your current job? Demeaning handing someone a cup of your urine, wasn't it? Even better is it's been PROVEN time and time again that pre-employment drug testing does nothing to limit employee drug use. Hell, you can buy powdered urine on the Internet for $30 and pass your test if you want. (And, I can see how you'd get the idea from those sentences, that was not the thing I was doing at home they didn't like.) How 'bout this article about signing away your prior inventions (if you haven't patented them, you're signing them away)? I guess you think this is a good idea, too, right? It's good business. The companies that ban smoking, even at home (there's a few out there. It's controversal, but not illegal.) What about when they decide you need an RFID tag implanted for their security? Hey, people lose SecureID tags all the time, it's just good business, those things ar $70-80 each!
Yes. In fact, I (ab)used it when my daughter was born to stay home and just be a daddy for a while. When it was running low, I went back to work and now it's replenished again.
But, you had the choice. I'm sure you would feel differently if you were forced to use up that fund prior to your daughter's birth because your employer didn't like your non-work related activities. Or, better yet...because you were going to have a child. There's no law to stop someone from firing you when you come in bearing cigars to pass around. Yes, you're protected if you decide to take paternity leave, but not before. "Uh-oh, he's having a kid, better get rid of him now. He'll be asking for raises and more time off." Think it can't happen? I've heard those exact sentences from a manager and quit right after they fired my coworker (this was back in the day when if you were as good as I am, you could quit a job and be working the next day, as I was). Yeah, you're right, that's just good business. Those father-types are all just slackers.
How about, "You know, come to think of it, they never came right out and gave a reason--I just assumed it was a layoff. Anyhow, it wasn't for cause, if that's what your asking."
That's pretty much the line I did give. Alas, it doesn't work as well as you think. At best you look like an idiot for not even bothering to ask why, at worst you look like you're covering up.
COBRA
And, you pay for this now that you're unemployed how? Oh, right, the rainy day fund. I'm glad you make enough to stash away not only nine months of full pay, but enough to pay $11-1200/month for your family's health care, too. You're the first person I've ever met with such a huge nest egg.
I'm not familiar with the law outside of the US. At any rate, US Federal law prohibits this. So if you are black and concerned that you will be wrongfully terminated as a result, you should stay in the US.
Regardless, there are 7 states that actively refuse to acknowledge those laws, so if you're fired for those reasons (assuming the company actually said that was the reason) you'd have to take it directly to federal court, you can't start with the local ones. In other words, it's harder to fight it in those states. Ignoring blacks, then, let's talk about gays or single mothers. They're not covered, even at the federal level.
Also, I'm not sure I understand the rest of your rant. The sword cuts both ways, big guy. You can leave your job at any time, and they can fire you at any time. You want job security? Go be a tenured professor or a federal government "worker".
The sword does cut both ways, but I'm never allowed to hold it. The "rights" given by at will are not even, the company always has the much greater advantage. As a human being, I should be the one with the advantage, or at least have even footing. I don't want job security, I don't want job insurance, I don't want any of the things you seem to believe I want beyond my right to the pursuit of happiness be not impeded by a manager with a chip on their shoulder.
And, I'll tell you the same thing I wish I'd told myself 5-6 years ago when I spewed the exact same nonesense as you're spewing: you're a fool and you need to realize that. Your destiny is not in your hands as long as you're employed by another. Period.
What is this "malicious" firing you are talking about? This is not something that I am familiar with.
Not yet, give it time. In my case, I was fired for something I do on my personal time, outside of work.
The drunk driver in your example would be guilty of the tort of negligence. Here, the offending party (drunk driver) owes you a duty of care and has breached it by operating a motor vehicle in an unsafe manner, endangering himself and those around him. Here the offending party would owe you compensation, since his negligence has clearly damaged you.
Great, you've made my point. Thank you.
At any rate, if your company didn't even notice that you were gone, you were obviously not providing any value and deserved to be fired. That's not malicious. It's just business.
I said my current company wouldn't be affected. I work on a team in an IT department of over 700. The loss of one, ANY one even at the director level, isn't felt by a company that large. At the time, however, I was working for a smaller company and I was the IT department. THEY felt the effects of my being fired. I know this for two reasons: the number of people I still maintain contact with who tell me of the now-constant downtime, the cycle of administrators they've had since me (4 in 6 years, I was there for three), and how they can't get anything fixed because everyone's constantly scrambing to put out small fires that they can't figure out how they started in the first place. There's also the consulting firm they hired right afterwards, and paid almost half a million dollars, to document and figure out how things were done. They called me soon after I landed my current job to offer me a position because they were so impressed with the work I did. I laughed when they called....if only they hadn't been so quick to dismiss me, I might have told them where on the network they could have found all that documentation....
I do understand where you're coming from, but I think there's a key difference in your analogy. In most, if not all states, when you receive your license, you are agreeing to operate the vehicle safely and accepting responsibility for any injuries that may come of you failure to do so. There is no such agreement when it comes to employment. Your employer is obligated to provide you with a safe work environment, handle some tax issues, and pay you promptly for your services.
Thanks, you've made my point. The specifics of the law are not important. It's the fact that there's plenty of legal definition in the law to protect an individual from harm from other people, but not employers. Others have made the point that I share the same rights as the company I work for, and I have a problem with that. Firstly, I'm a living, breathing person, I deserve better/more rights than a paper-entity. Period. There should be SOME legal framework in place to protect people from being abused by their employer. I honestly couldn't tell you exactly what that framework should be, I have some ideas, but anything would be an improvement over what we have right now. Secondly, as I've stated the rights are equal, but not balanced. The company wields more power in its ability to separate from me than I do from separating from them. I'm not talking about financial remuneration, I'm talking about keeping them in check.
It's funny that you mention contracts. NYS law provides 17 pages dealing with contract labor law. How contracted employees are to be treated, how they're to be dealt with and negotiated with, etc. It's pretty much a copy of what exists in the "contract law" section already. It's a useless addition that provides no value, but someone took the time to write it to protect the contracted employees. Funny, isn't it? They already have a contract to protect them, but they get additional laws on top of it, too. Non-contracted employees, however, get nothing. "White after labor day" is as much a valid excuse for immediate termination as murdering 10 of your coworkers. Hell, something as simple as "These are the valid cause reasons for immediate termination: XXX, XXX and XXX. Anything else requires at least some documentation that you've put in a reasonable attempt to work with the employee to correct the behavior" would save a lot of people a lot of pain.
Hell, I don't even think my suggestions could be construed as punative. This kind of thing HELPS companies. Hiring replacements, retraining, being without a key employee during those times...they all cost money. A lot of money. A lot more money than simply walking up to the pre-terminated employee and saying "we don't like you doing that, please stop". My suggestion doesn't even deny companies the right to fire people on the "white after labor day" level. They can still do that, but they need to document that they've asked the employee to follow current fashion trends, and he didn't. But, at least he had a chance to change. Trust me, you sound exactly as I did 5-6 years ago. I believed in the "you don't like your job, leave" philosphy, too. Nothing changes your tune quicker than two weeks after a perfect review you're escorted out of the building for something you do on your personal time that has nothing whatsoever to do with the company you work for. Well, maybe one thing: calling dozens of lawyers, and despite tons of documentation that the things they said I did (as the "official" reason for termination) were actually done by my boss and others in management, none will take your case because "Hey, it's an at will state. I agree, that's wrong, but you're screwed".
So, same question as the last twit: if I'm injured in an accident with a drunk driver and can't work, should I have to shoulder the responsibility myself? If not, then how does this differ? You can try to make me out to be some kind of whiner, but unless you can give me a good answer to those questions, then you're just a heartless prick who deserves to be set on fire.
Okay, I think you're missing the point, so let's address this from another angle...you're driving down the street minding your own business when WHAM! you're hit by a drunk driver. You're disabled and unable to work for 9 months. Do you have a right to sue said driver and/or his insurance company for your lost wages? Of course you do. Then, why can't you do it to an employer who maliciously fires you without cause? Why is it I can sue someone for lost wages when there's no malicious intent (the driver was stupid, but he didn't go out of his way to harm ME on purpose), but not when there is? No one's talking about SOLVING my problems, I'm talking about repercussions for those who CAUSE my problems. If my problems are my own doing, then yes they are my responsibility. But, having no recourse for a causeless termination is as much bull as not being able to sue a drunk driver for incapacitating me.
Worse yet, employers are taking advantage of this as a way to reduce employee benefits and pay. After all, you don't like it, fine, leave. But, in today's job market where you'll be lucky if there's even one LISTING a month, you don't really have that choice anymore, either. They've learned that they can pile shit on top of you as high as the sky and there's nothing you can do about it. There's a reason the French get an average of 7 weeks vacation/year and Americans get 12 days....that they can't take because the company has trimmed the workforce to less than minimum and people aren't allowed to take time off.
"At will" simply means that either party is free to sever the relationship at any time.
Just because I share a right with an employer does not mean our rights are equal. If I decided right now to just walk out and not come back, my company is not even going to notice. Now, if my manager comes to me next month and says "You're wearing white after Labor Day. Get out!" the financial, not to mention emotional, hardship that's caused by that is nearly irrevocable. Even with a rainy day fund and help from my family, it took me over a year to recover financially from that firing. Why should I have to deal with that?
Only if you've managed your finances on the premise that you would never go a week (or *gasp* months) without a paycheck. It's called a rainy day fund. Your company has one. I have one. You should too. No one is responsible for your life except you.
What a decidedly republican thing to say. What happens when you're fired without any good reason, and then go nine months without a paycheck? Do you have a nine month rainy day fund? Think you won't have to go that long? How easy do you think it is to find a job when you have to explain to your next potential employer why you were fired, and the best answer you can come up with is "I wish I could tell you. I wasn't given a reason."? How are families supposed to take care of their kids medical needs when that happens and they lose their insurance? How 'bout those folks who have to go through this in the states where it's ok to fire blacks? Or gays? Or single mothers?
You know what, fuck you, I'm not going nice on this one. Rainy day funds are supposed to cover you, and provide for you, when some calamity strikes. Capricious whims of nature are one thing, but having people's lives determined by the innane flights of fancy of management are another. Why should *I* have to suffer because some senior manager decided that his bonus isn't going to be high enough this year, so he initiates a round of layoffs. Why should I have to deplete my rainy day fund because management sucked every salesman's dick until they drained every ounce of cash with exorbitant expense accounts? No one's asking for a handout, Rush. We're only asking to be treated fairly. That's supposed to be the premise behind "at will", anyway.
It's the norm here for an employee to be terminated with no stated reason, because 1) the employer is not obligated to provide a reason and 2) if they do, they might have to answer for the fact that the reason is complete bullshit.
Not exactly...it's much worse than that. The employer is not obligated to provide a reason, because an employer doesn't NEED a reason. They can come in an fire you on a whim, and it would be legal. The basic idea is that you should be able to quit without reason or repercussion, so employers should be able to fire you similarly. The problem is, it's not reciprocal in any way. If you quit a company out of the blue, you're more than likely not going to cause any kind of financial difficulty to the company. They'll get along just fine without you. If, however, your employer decides to go skeet shooting with pink slips you're pretty much fucked. They also have all these nifty policies and agreements you have to sign before employment, all of which are designed to lock out any fringe chance you might have had for suing for wrongful termination. It's a wonderful system we live under, and people wonder why employees are so frustrated. Here's a clue: we're bent over teh barrel, our pants are down and you've just walked in the door with a donkey. You tell ME why I'm so worried!
Under these laws, though, it should be legal for me to walk into a place and when told I have tons of paperwork to sign, I hand over a pile of my own. I think it should be fair that a company not hold me responsible for the failure of a system if I haven't been trained in how to use that system. Seems reasonable. I also shouldn't be held responsible for failures due to management mistakes or procedural processes. If I'm expected to follow a set of rules, then they should, too. Why not?
Typical Apple fanboy. They'll pay more for less functionality and say they do it to be "cool", all the while those of us with PMPs not made by Apple are all laughing at them. Sad little drone.
I'm sorry, but this is exactly the sort of bullshit monopoly laws exist to prevent: a company with an excessive amount of market share abusing its position in an attempt to exclude its competitiors.
You're absolutely right, but it only applies when there's valid competitors to the "monopoly". Let's take a look at the lineup of whiners from the last one: AOL (not even a competitor), Netscape, Sun. Companies that produce(d) ridiculously crappy products complaining that MS was stunting their growth, when the real problem was no one wanted their products. Well, aside from AOL at the time, but that share's diminishing, too. Now, we look at who might be in the next one...a bunch of companies who've made their livings selling bloated pig software that is about to be made obsolete...unless of course Microsoft leaves a gaping hole in the OS so they can shoe-horn their products down people's throats. Greaaaaaaat.
you have to realize that posting something of that kind of rediculous petulance only serves to make your entire argument seem... well, pathetic.
I do what I can to fit in with the slashdot crowd!
Yup, it stinks to high heaven. Once again the third-party "security" companies will run to the DOJ and force another worthless trial on the taxpayers, all so they can continue to milk us for every dollar, while providing no real benefit or even good software. But, hey, at least the gays can't get married.
I'm old enough to remember how Reagon was demonized just like Bush Jr.
Firstly, I'm old enough, too. Reagan was a porn star compared to Bush Jr. and Crew. This goes beyond Bush. This enters the Senate, the House and now the Supreme Court. Zoning boards across the nation are zoning anything the chrisitians don't like out of town (porn shops, strip clubs, etc). Are you old enough to remember the hub-bub about Janet's boob? When was "intelligent design" even on the table at school boards, let alone a serious consideration?
The truth is the people, the voters, are in control. Politicians of the left and right are only getting away with what the voters *allow* them to get away with. Stupid crap happens because the irritation level does not rise to a level that motivates enough voters. When politicians do cross that line they get whacked down by the voters.
So, what you're saying is you're old enough to remember the dream, but haven't awakened to the reality yet? 'pubs are fixing elections across the country, ADMITTING to fixing elections, and no one raises an outcry. Of course, give people even the whiff that their american idol election is fixed and then you'll get a letter-writing campaign.
Sorry, but these two post really comment on the sad state of affairs on slashdot. Slashdot is a bit heavy with tinfoil hat types.
Perhaps, but I would argue that the growing number of tinfoil hats is due to the growing amount of government misconduct going on right now: erosion or outright removal of basic rights, blatant collusion with corporations to screw as much money out of consumers as possible which includes rewriting emminent domain to allow corporations to take people's property, spying on the populace's phone and financial records, a growing theocracy hell-bent (pun intended) on ensuring EVERYONE follows christian beliefs, no matter how whacky. Let's not forget trying to subsititute "intelligent design" as actual fact in the classroom, all the while calling global warming "junk science".
And, as bad as all of that sounds, that's just the small stuff. If we start counting in the current jihad...er, crusade...uh, "War on Terror"...yeah that's it...well, the atrocities just keep adding up.
As the old adage goes: "just 'cause you're paranoid, don't mean they ain't out to getcha."
Religious-based schools, yes. Public schools funded by taxpayers and frequented by people of all faiths (and non-faiths)? Never. Well, maybe a comparative religions class where the fundamental beliefs of each are discussed. Like it or not, religion and other superstitions rule our world still, and it's good to know who you're dealing with. This comparative religions class should be OPTIONAL, though, not mandatory.
I think this is what pisses me off most about the whole "intelligent" design idea. You want your kids to learn that as hard, scientific fact? Send them to your church's school. That's what they're for! You want them to learn secular sciences, send them to public school, but understand they'll get NO religious stuff at all. Freedom OF religion implies freedom FROM religion. And, no matter what way you slice it, "intelligent" design is religion pure and simple. You want to send your kids to school on the tax payers dime (I don't care if you're also a tax payer, that doesn't entitle you to change the fundamentals of the Constitution), then teach them your voodoo at home where it belongs.
Sounds like you don't really care that they had a permit, you only care that they were in your way. Pretty selfish attitude.
What if he didn't believe in the cause? What if he believed the protestors were WRONG and he believes the opposite way? In his mind, then, the hippies are the selfish ones for blocking up traffic for their "cause". Who gets to protest the protesters? Sounds to me like you're one of those hippies who refuse to believe that anyone else could possibly be right if their view differs from yours.
Yes, I've heard of it. It is a very widely known logical fallacy.
Only to people who keep their eyes closed and don't see that it happens all the time. One only has to look at "gun laws" to see proof that one wrong move often leads to worse wrong moves.
I agree with the slippery slope idea in the abstract. This bill, though, does not ban any speech. It only bans speech that is used specifically on porn websites with the intent to deceive. There is nothing in this bill that threatens your free speech.
"Does not ban any speech, it only bans speech"? Firstly, point me to a SINGLE instance where a porn website has been setup specifically to attract kids. It shouldn't be hard to do because if it existed, then there would be a record of the operator being taken to court for allowing kids into his site. Where is the incident that lead someone to think this is necessary? This is yet another law designed to make it seem like they're "protecting the children", but there is no evidence whatsoever that it's going to do anything. It's similar to the 2257 law last year that puts undo burden on porn producers for record keeping. These laws are designed solely to stamp out LEGAL pornography. Legitimate and legal porn producers already do a hell of a lot of self-policing to ensure children don't have access to porn, they don't WANT kids to have access. So, what is this helping? I'll tell you exactly what it's helping: to convince the mindless religous drones that the theocracy is doing good and reelect them. The only way your kids will be safe is if the power of the jesus is running the country. Ironically, to those who have brains, we see how fucked our kids will be.
I think it just makes you guys feel smart and important to get apocalyptic and pissed about everything.
Somebody has to do it. Our rights are being erroded on a daily basis, and it's not even being discussed in the mainstream media. It took the mainstream, what, a month to report on the AT&T records scandal? How much attention is it getting now? How much attention is THIS topic getting? If you wanna be another drone who thinks congress is smarter than you and is doing right by you, feel free. Me, I prefer to examine what they're doing.
Firstly, let me make this clear: we're not talking about me here. This hasn't happened to me, and were it to I'm prepared. I keep ALL of my receipts, I keep records of all calls, etc. If I received such a demand, they'd receive a response, not a check. That being said, there was another article today about a millionaire receiving one of the threat letters from the MPAA. Apparently, his legal costs are going to be on the order of $100,000. I'm thinking that's a best case scenario. If you were to receive the "pay us $2500 or we'll sue" letters from the MPAA what are you going to do? Risk your family's well-being and future on the EXTREMELY SLIM chance you could not only fight it and win, but fight it, win and collect remuneration for your legal fees? Remember, you're not going to find a lawyer who will fight this on a contingency, you have to pay all of those fees up front.
I don't disagree, but going to court costs money. Often times it costs more than just agreeing to the "charge" and walking away. As has been pointed out on so many posts about the MPAA, that's how companies are making their money these days: frivolous lawsuits.
Thanks, I was going to ask about that. If each individual trip takes so long due to idiots in line, why not just not go as often and buy more when you're there?
Just a friendly warning...a lot of people have been finding that these things come back to haunt them years later. In the States, they have up to, I think, 5 years to collect on a debt. However, if they sell your account to a third-party agency that agency then gets five years to try, too. Most times, once it goes to the third party, that company will IMMEDIATELY report it to the agencies, jack up the amount and call it "interest" or "administrative fees" and hound you until you pay. Your safest bet is to keep the receipts for those purchased CDs forever. These companies are built on the fact that no one does. Similarly, I've heard rumors of rental car companies calling months after you rented the car to get you to pay for "damage". Since no one keeps the receipt that shows there was no damage, most people end up paying it. I'm not sure if this is a growing urban myth or not as I can't find any other evidence of it aside from a couple of people mentioning it, but I err on the side of caution these days when dealing with companies.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Drunk driver = negligent, Asshole manager = not negligent
:) At this point, I'd be happy with ANY. At the moment, all we have now is to make sure to bring a shotgun when you return for a visit. But, that's not really very feasible, either.
Yes, and that's my point. So, let me summarize:
Drunk driver ruins your life: you have recourse.
Asshole manager ruins your life: you have no recourse. Suck up and deal.
Get it now. I think the real problem you're having is you're assuming more drastic recourses than I'm suggesting.
So you do know why you were terminated, then? Which is it? Do you know or not know? If that's the case, try, "Well, I like to think of myself as a personable guy. I tend to get along with people. So I have to tell you I'm shocked to have to tell you that I left due to a personality conflict with my manager. I've gotten along fine with 9 other managers, but for whatever reason, things just did not work out with him. It was a difficult, but good learning experience for me in how to function constructively in case I am ever in that situation in the future." Anyhow, then you will look like less of an idiot. Assuming you don't bungle the rest of the interview.
Of course I do, it was because of something I do in my own time. It doesn't matter what the reason was, though. It's enough to know that it wasn't a valid reason. As for your statement, that's what I ended up going with. Problem is, in a dry market, doesn't matter how well you interview if you can't even find a place to put your resume.
For all I know, it did happen. Who cares?
Really? Are you really that callous and sadistic? Even if you didn't accept that it did happen, the fact that it COULD happen should bother you as a human being.
I suggest you move to a state that protects you from discrimination based on sexual preference
Why? Why should anyone have to move or change their lifestyle or even keep their sexual preferences in the dark for a job? It's a job. And, frankly, how is that single mother supposed to just pick up and leave the state? Leave their family behind? Wow, the things you'll do to get a job. How sore your ass must be.
Nine months of living expenses. Big difference.
Not really. You can trim off the excess, but again I ask why should I have to? I did my job, better than could be hoped for. I didn't steal company property or attack one of my coworkers, why do I have to change my lifestyle because of narrow-minded bigots? The American dream is that I work hard and well, and I keep my job and reap the benefits of my hard work. Just because you've given up on that and accept your lot in life doesn't mean others can't try to work towards it. I refuse to live in your dark, cold, callous world. Layoffs happen. Companies go out of business. This is how things work in the business world and no one's asking for "protection" from that. But, people need to be treated fairly and decently. Yes, "life's not fair". That doesn't mean we have to be, too. Life doesn't have a choice, we do. Don't you want something better for your daughter?
Most companies don't turn over staff unnecessarily.
Really? I had no idea that Slashdot was read on other planets. What is the color of the sky on your little world, BTW?
So you got screwed once. Big deal.
Okay, now I see the problem here, you're concentrating on one incident that happened to one person (me). My termination wasn't the reason I want the system changed, it just opened my eyes to how completely devoid of rights we have as employees. It's not just about being fired, it's about not losing my right to privacy or my right to live how I want or losing my free time because an employer only SAYS they give vacation time (in that they give it on the books, but they've got everyone so overworked they are never allowed to take that time). This is about employees being able to not only do their jobs in peace without the constant fear of being arbitrarily terminated, but also to not have to have a huge rainy day fund wasted because of it (yes, wasted is the proper word for it). Or, have to take any level of abuse because "you can leave any time", because it's not just one employer that does that, it's almost all of them. There are exceptions, but they're rare exceptions and not the norm.
Go into business for yourself. Oh, man, would you get slaughtered. Wow.
What does one have to do with the other? Because I'm not a puss
When I said that the drunk driver was guilty of a tort,
Exactly. that was my point.
your employer does not owe you a job
Never said they did, in fact said numerous times that they didn't.
I'm not sure how I can explain it any more clearly. Your analogy was bad and irrelevant. Such is life.
I don't know, we're both saying the same things, yet you seem to think I want a handout. Such is life when the media tells people how to think. I don't expect a lot from people, but I still try.
If there is "one LISTING a month" then clearly the supply of labor is far exceeding the demand and thus the value of your labor is strongly decreased.
Actually, it's due to websites like Monster, etc. It becomes child's play to find listings for your job skills in cities other than your own. It's funny, people need to relocate because there's no jobs left in their area because everyone relocated there. Instead of fighting within a limited pool of applicants, you now have to contend with the entire country. On interviewer told me they received 2600 applications for one posting within 3 hours. Regardless of all of that, we're not talking about the value/pay relationship. This is a disparity of rights conversation.
A rainy day fund is damn good advice. It will put some of the control back in your hands. You won't be so desperate for a paycheque that you have to put up with whatever crap your employer wants to dump on you. You can push back, maintain some self respect, and not be living in constant dread of losing your job.
Really? How's that work? I've got a rainy day fund, and I still worry about it on a day-to-day basis. Regardless of the number of praises I get from project managers and during reviews, I know all too well that it's all just to provide me with a false sense of security and that if my manager doesn't get laid one night, I could be on the way out. Hell, I don't even need a "white after labor day" argument...if I push back and attempt to maintain some self respect, I'm on my way out, too. Then I'd have to deplete my fund again, and when I get reemployed...I'm working just to replenish it for the first year or so. The whole time I'm cognizant of the fact that I no longer have that cushion. Screwed is screwed regargless of whether or not you lube your ass up first.
I know from experience that losing a job can be a kick in the nuts, and yes, I'm sure it sucks to be you. I know this all sounds cold, but this is reality, and reality seldom adjusts itself to suit our wishes.
Guess what? You CAN change reality, you just have to stop sitting back saying "Well, whattayagonnado?" Even still, this isn't "reality" doing this, this is people actively working to limit my rights. This is corporations having more control over my life than I do all the while telling me that my rights are equal to theirs. Bull. I'm a human, not a resource.
If you are injured by a drunk driver, you have the following at your disposal
Exactly. I have legal recourse at my disposal. I do not when wrongly terminated. Why? If you've got a rainy day fund, why can't we just tell people to stop whining when they get injured in a car accident and use their rainy day fund? How does it differ? It's not my fault they can't drive well enough. Why should I have to pay higher insurance premiums? Hell, we shouldn't have insurance at all. It's just a drain. If I didn't have to pay for all this insurance to protect me from other people, I'd have a much larger rainy day fund to take care of myself with.
Just as you can be the best driver in the world and still get in to an accident, you can be the best employee in the world and still get fired because your boss doesn't like the color of the buttons on your shirt. It hasn't happened to you yet, and I hope it never does. But, it happens every day, and it's increasing. It's increasing because employers are learning how advantageous it is to have the law on their side (the law is on their side, even if the rights are the same) and fools like you will defend their ability to do it for some demented reason. You wanna walk your merry way down to voluntary slavery, you go right ahead.
It's not even about termination. How 'bout invasion of privacy? Did you have to take a drug test for your current job? Demeaning handing someone a cup of your urine, wasn't it? Even better is it's been PROVEN time and time again that pre-employment drug testing does nothing to limit employee drug use. Hell, you can buy powdered urine on the Internet for $30 and pass your test if you want. (And, I can see how you'd get the idea from those sentences, that was not the thing I was doing at home they didn't like.) How 'bout this article about signing away your prior inventions (if you haven't patented them, you're signing them away)? I guess you think this is a good idea, too, right? It's good business. The companies that ban smoking, even at home (there's a few out there. It's controversal, but not illegal.) What about when they decide you need an RFID tag implanted for their security? Hey, people lose SecureID tags all the time, it's just good business, those things ar $70-80 each!
Yes. In fact, I (ab)used it when my daughter was born to stay home and just be a daddy for a while. When it was running low, I went back to work and now it's replenished again.
But, you had the choice. I'm sure you would feel differently if you were forced to use up that fund prior to your daughter's birth because your employer didn't like your non-work related activities. Or, better yet...because you were going to have a child. There's no law to stop someone from firing you when you come in bearing cigars to pass around. Yes, you're protected if you decide to take paternity leave, but not before. "Uh-oh, he's having a kid, better get rid of him now. He'll be asking for raises and more time off." Think it can't happen? I've heard those exact sentences from a manager and quit right after they fired my coworker (this was back in the day when if you were as good as I am, you could quit a job and be working the next day, as I was). Yeah, you're right, that's just good business. Those father-types are all just slackers.
How about, "You know, come to think of it, they never came right out and gave a reason--I just assumed it was a layoff. Anyhow, it wasn't for cause, if that's what your asking."
That's pretty much the line I did give. Alas, it doesn't work as well as you think. At best you look like an idiot for not even bothering to ask why, at worst you look like you're covering up.
COBRA
And, you pay for this now that you're unemployed how? Oh, right, the rainy day fund. I'm glad you make enough to stash away not only nine months of full pay, but enough to pay $11-1200/month for your family's health care, too. You're the first person I've ever met with such a huge nest egg.
I'm not familiar with the law outside of the US. At any rate, US Federal law prohibits this. So if you are black and concerned that you will be wrongfully terminated as a result, you should stay in the US.
Regardless, there are 7 states that actively refuse to acknowledge those laws, so if you're fired for those reasons (assuming the company actually said that was the reason) you'd have to take it directly to federal court, you can't start with the local ones. In other words, it's harder to fight it in those states. Ignoring blacks, then, let's talk about gays or single mothers. They're not covered, even at the federal level.
Also, I'm not sure I understand the rest of your rant. The sword cuts both ways, big guy. You can leave your job at any time, and they can fire you at any time. You want job security? Go be a tenured professor or a federal government "worker".
The sword does cut both ways, but I'm never allowed to hold it. The "rights" given by at will are not even, the company always has the much greater advantage. As a human being, I should be the one with the advantage, or at least have even footing. I don't want job security, I don't want job insurance, I don't want any of the things you seem to believe I want beyond my right to the pursuit of happiness be not impeded by a manager with a chip on their shoulder.
And, I'll tell you the same thing I wish I'd told myself 5-6 years ago when I spewed the exact same nonesense as you're spewing: you're a fool and you need to realize that. Your destiny is not in your hands as long as you're employed by another. Period.
What is this "malicious" firing you are talking about? This is not something that I am familiar with.
Not yet, give it time. In my case, I was fired for something I do on my personal time, outside of work.
The drunk driver in your example would be guilty of the tort of negligence. Here, the offending party (drunk driver) owes you a duty of care and has breached it by operating a motor vehicle in an unsafe manner, endangering himself and those around him. Here the offending party would owe you compensation, since his negligence has clearly damaged you.
Great, you've made my point. Thank you.
At any rate, if your company didn't even notice that you were gone, you were obviously not providing any value and deserved to be fired. That's not malicious. It's just business.
I said my current company wouldn't be affected. I work on a team in an IT department of over 700. The loss of one, ANY one even at the director level, isn't felt by a company that large. At the time, however, I was working for a smaller company and I was the IT department. THEY felt the effects of my being fired. I know this for two reasons: the number of people I still maintain contact with who tell me of the now-constant downtime, the cycle of administrators they've had since me (4 in 6 years, I was there for three), and how they can't get anything fixed because everyone's constantly scrambing to put out small fires that they can't figure out how they started in the first place. There's also the consulting firm they hired right afterwards, and paid almost half a million dollars, to document and figure out how things were done. They called me soon after I landed my current job to offer me a position because they were so impressed with the work I did. I laughed when they called....if only they hadn't been so quick to dismiss me, I might have told them where on the network they could have found all that documentation....
I do understand where you're coming from, but I think there's a key difference in your analogy. In most, if not all states, when you receive your license, you are agreeing to operate the vehicle safely and accepting responsibility for any injuries that may come of you failure to do so. There is no such agreement when it comes to employment. Your employer is obligated to provide you with a safe work environment, handle some tax issues, and pay you promptly for your services.
Thanks, you've made my point. The specifics of the law are not important. It's the fact that there's plenty of legal definition in the law to protect an individual from harm from other people, but not employers. Others have made the point that I share the same rights as the company I work for, and I have a problem with that. Firstly, I'm a living, breathing person, I deserve better/more rights than a paper-entity. Period. There should be SOME legal framework in place to protect people from being abused by their employer. I honestly couldn't tell you exactly what that framework should be, I have some ideas, but anything would be an improvement over what we have right now. Secondly, as I've stated the rights are equal, but not balanced. The company wields more power in its ability to separate from me than I do from separating from them. I'm not talking about financial remuneration, I'm talking about keeping them in check.
It's funny that you mention contracts. NYS law provides 17 pages dealing with contract labor law. How contracted employees are to be treated, how they're to be dealt with and negotiated with, etc. It's pretty much a copy of what exists in the "contract law" section already. It's a useless addition that provides no value, but someone took the time to write it to protect the contracted employees. Funny, isn't it? They already have a contract to protect them, but they get additional laws on top of it, too. Non-contracted employees, however, get nothing. "White after labor day" is as much a valid excuse for immediate termination as murdering 10 of your coworkers. Hell, something as simple as "These are the valid cause reasons for immediate termination: XXX, XXX and XXX. Anything else requires at least some documentation that you've put in a reasonable attempt to work with the employee to correct the behavior" would save a lot of people a lot of pain.
Hell, I don't even think my suggestions could be construed as punative. This kind of thing HELPS companies. Hiring replacements, retraining, being without a key employee during those times...they all cost money. A lot of money. A lot more money than simply walking up to the pre-terminated employee and saying "we don't like you doing that, please stop". My suggestion doesn't even deny companies the right to fire people on the "white after labor day" level. They can still do that, but they need to document that they've asked the employee to follow current fashion trends, and he didn't. But, at least he had a chance to change. Trust me, you sound exactly as I did 5-6 years ago. I believed in the "you don't like your job, leave" philosphy, too. Nothing changes your tune quicker than two weeks after a perfect review you're escorted out of the building for something you do on your personal time that has nothing whatsoever to do with the company you work for. Well, maybe one thing: calling dozens of lawyers, and despite tons of documentation that the things they said I did (as the "official" reason for termination) were actually done by my boss and others in management, none will take your case because "Hey, it's an at will state. I agree, that's wrong, but you're screwed".
So, same question as the last twit: if I'm injured in an accident with a drunk driver and can't work, should I have to shoulder the responsibility myself? If not, then how does this differ? You can try to make me out to be some kind of whiner, but unless you can give me a good answer to those questions, then you're just a heartless prick who deserves to be set on fire.
Okay, I think you're missing the point, so let's address this from another angle...you're driving down the street minding your own business when WHAM! you're hit by a drunk driver. You're disabled and unable to work for 9 months. Do you have a right to sue said driver and/or his insurance company for your lost wages? Of course you do. Then, why can't you do it to an employer who maliciously fires you without cause? Why is it I can sue someone for lost wages when there's no malicious intent (the driver was stupid, but he didn't go out of his way to harm ME on purpose), but not when there is? No one's talking about SOLVING my problems, I'm talking about repercussions for those who CAUSE my problems. If my problems are my own doing, then yes they are my responsibility. But, having no recourse for a causeless termination is as much bull as not being able to sue a drunk driver for incapacitating me.
Worse yet, employers are taking advantage of this as a way to reduce employee benefits and pay. After all, you don't like it, fine, leave. But, in today's job market where you'll be lucky if there's even one LISTING a month, you don't really have that choice anymore, either. They've learned that they can pile shit on top of you as high as the sky and there's nothing you can do about it. There's a reason the French get an average of 7 weeks vacation/year and Americans get 12 days....that they can't take because the company has trimmed the workforce to less than minimum and people aren't allowed to take time off.
"At will" simply means that either party is free to sever the relationship at any time.
Just because I share a right with an employer does not mean our rights are equal. If I decided right now to just walk out and not come back, my company is not even going to notice. Now, if my manager comes to me next month and says "You're wearing white after Labor Day. Get out!" the financial, not to mention emotional, hardship that's caused by that is nearly irrevocable. Even with a rainy day fund and help from my family, it took me over a year to recover financially from that firing. Why should I have to deal with that?
Only if you've managed your finances on the premise that you would never go a week (or *gasp* months) without a paycheck. It's called a rainy day fund. Your company has one. I have one. You should too. No one is responsible for your life except you.
What a decidedly republican thing to say. What happens when you're fired without any good reason, and then go nine months without a paycheck? Do you have a nine month rainy day fund? Think you won't have to go that long? How easy do you think it is to find a job when you have to explain to your next potential employer why you were fired, and the best answer you can come up with is "I wish I could tell you. I wasn't given a reason."? How are families supposed to take care of their kids medical needs when that happens and they lose their insurance? How 'bout those folks who have to go through this in the states where it's ok to fire blacks? Or gays? Or single mothers?
You know what, fuck you, I'm not going nice on this one. Rainy day funds are supposed to cover you, and provide for you, when some calamity strikes. Capricious whims of nature are one thing, but having people's lives determined by the innane flights of fancy of management are another. Why should *I* have to suffer because some senior manager decided that his bonus isn't going to be high enough this year, so he initiates a round of layoffs. Why should I have to deplete my rainy day fund because management sucked every salesman's dick until they drained every ounce of cash with exorbitant expense accounts? No one's asking for a handout, Rush. We're only asking to be treated fairly. That's supposed to be the premise behind "at will", anyway.
It's the norm here for an employee to be terminated with no stated reason, because 1) the employer is not obligated to provide a reason and 2) if they do, they might have to answer for the fact that the reason is complete bullshit.
Not exactly...it's much worse than that. The employer is not obligated to provide a reason, because an employer doesn't NEED a reason. They can come in an fire you on a whim, and it would be legal. The basic idea is that you should be able to quit without reason or repercussion, so employers should be able to fire you similarly. The problem is, it's not reciprocal in any way. If you quit a company out of the blue, you're more than likely not going to cause any kind of financial difficulty to the company. They'll get along just fine without you. If, however, your employer decides to go skeet shooting with pink slips you're pretty much fucked. They also have all these nifty policies and agreements you have to sign before employment, all of which are designed to lock out any fringe chance you might have had for suing for wrongful termination. It's a wonderful system we live under, and people wonder why employees are so frustrated. Here's a clue: we're bent over teh barrel, our pants are down and you've just walked in the door with a donkey. You tell ME why I'm so worried!
Under these laws, though, it should be legal for me to walk into a place and when told I have tons of paperwork to sign, I hand over a pile of my own. I think it should be fair that a company not hold me responsible for the failure of a system if I haven't been trained in how to use that system. Seems reasonable. I also shouldn't be held responsible for failures due to management mistakes or procedural processes. If I'm expected to follow a set of rules, then they should, too. Why not?
Only when you have technophobic unix guys running it.
The one thing missing for Microsoft, is panache.
Typical Apple fanboy. They'll pay more for less functionality and say they do it to be "cool", all the while those of us with PMPs not made by Apple are all laughing at them. Sad little drone.
I'm sorry, but this is exactly the sort of bullshit monopoly laws exist to prevent: a company with an excessive amount of market share abusing its position in an attempt to exclude its competitiors.
You're absolutely right, but it only applies when there's valid competitors to the "monopoly". Let's take a look at the lineup of whiners from the last one: AOL (not even a competitor), Netscape, Sun. Companies that produce(d) ridiculously crappy products complaining that MS was stunting their growth, when the real problem was no one wanted their products. Well, aside from AOL at the time, but that share's diminishing, too. Now, we look at who might be in the next one...a bunch of companies who've made their livings selling bloated pig software that is about to be made obsolete...unless of course Microsoft leaves a gaping hole in the OS so they can shoe-horn their products down people's throats. Greaaaaaaat.
you have to realize that posting something of that kind of rediculous petulance only serves to make your entire argument seem... well, pathetic.
I do what I can to fit in with the slashdot crowd!
Yeah... that smells pungent to me.
Yup, it stinks to high heaven. Once again the third-party "security" companies will run to the DOJ and force another worthless trial on the taxpayers, all so they can continue to milk us for every dollar, while providing no real benefit or even good software. But, hey, at least the gays can't get married.
I'm old enough to remember how Reagon was demonized just like Bush Jr.
Firstly, I'm old enough, too. Reagan was a porn star compared to Bush Jr. and Crew. This goes beyond Bush. This enters the Senate, the House and now the Supreme Court. Zoning boards across the nation are zoning anything the chrisitians don't like out of town (porn shops, strip clubs, etc). Are you old enough to remember the hub-bub about Janet's boob? When was "intelligent design" even on the table at school boards, let alone a serious consideration?
The truth is the people, the voters, are in control. Politicians of the left and right are only getting away with what the voters *allow* them to get away with. Stupid crap happens because the irritation level does not rise to a level that motivates enough voters. When politicians do cross that line they get whacked down by the voters.
So, what you're saying is you're old enough to remember the dream, but haven't awakened to the reality yet? 'pubs are fixing elections across the country, ADMITTING to fixing elections, and no one raises an outcry. Of course, give people even the whiff that their american idol election is fixed and then you'll get a letter-writing campaign.
Sorry, but these two post really comment on the sad state of affairs on slashdot. Slashdot is a bit heavy with tinfoil hat types.
Perhaps, but I would argue that the growing number of tinfoil hats is due to the growing amount of government misconduct going on right now: erosion or outright removal of basic rights, blatant collusion with corporations to screw as much money out of consumers as possible which includes rewriting emminent domain to allow corporations to take people's property, spying on the populace's phone and financial records, a growing theocracy hell-bent (pun intended) on ensuring EVERYONE follows christian beliefs, no matter how whacky. Let's not forget trying to subsititute "intelligent design" as actual fact in the classroom, all the while calling global warming "junk science".
And, as bad as all of that sounds, that's just the small stuff. If we start counting in the current jihad...er, crusade...uh, "War on Terror"...yeah that's it...well, the atrocities just keep adding up.
As the old adage goes: "just 'cause you're paranoid, don't mean they ain't out to getcha."
Should religion be taught in schools?
Religious-based schools, yes. Public schools funded by taxpayers and frequented by people of all faiths (and non-faiths)? Never. Well, maybe a comparative religions class where the fundamental beliefs of each are discussed. Like it or not, religion and other superstitions rule our world still, and it's good to know who you're dealing with. This comparative religions class should be OPTIONAL, though, not mandatory.
I think this is what pisses me off most about the whole "intelligent" design idea. You want your kids to learn that as hard, scientific fact? Send them to your church's school. That's what they're for! You want them to learn secular sciences, send them to public school, but understand they'll get NO religious stuff at all. Freedom OF religion implies freedom FROM religion. And, no matter what way you slice it, "intelligent" design is religion pure and simple. You want to send your kids to school on the tax payers dime (I don't care if you're also a tax payer, that doesn't entitle you to change the fundamentals of the Constitution), then teach them your voodoo at home where it belongs.
Sounds like you don't really care that they had a permit, you only care that they were in your way. Pretty selfish attitude.
What if he didn't believe in the cause? What if he believed the protestors were WRONG and he believes the opposite way? In his mind, then, the hippies are the selfish ones for blocking up traffic for their "cause". Who gets to protest the protesters? Sounds to me like you're one of those hippies who refuse to believe that anyone else could possibly be right if their view differs from yours.
Yes, I've heard of it. It is a very widely known logical fallacy.
Only to people who keep their eyes closed and don't see that it happens all the time. One only has to look at "gun laws" to see proof that one wrong move often leads to worse wrong moves.
I agree with the slippery slope idea in the abstract. This bill, though, does not ban any speech. It only bans speech that is used specifically on porn websites with the intent to deceive. There is nothing in this bill that threatens your free speech.
"Does not ban any speech, it only bans speech"? Firstly, point me to a SINGLE instance where a porn website has been setup specifically to attract kids. It shouldn't be hard to do because if it existed, then there would be a record of the operator being taken to court for allowing kids into his site. Where is the incident that lead someone to think this is necessary? This is yet another law designed to make it seem like they're "protecting the children", but there is no evidence whatsoever that it's going to do anything. It's similar to the 2257 law last year that puts undo burden on porn producers for record keeping. These laws are designed solely to stamp out LEGAL pornography. Legitimate and legal porn producers already do a hell of a lot of self-policing to ensure children don't have access to porn, they don't WANT kids to have access. So, what is this helping? I'll tell you exactly what it's helping: to convince the mindless religous drones that the theocracy is doing good and reelect them. The only way your kids will be safe is if the power of the jesus is running the country. Ironically, to those who have brains, we see how fucked our kids will be.
I think it just makes you guys feel smart and important to get apocalyptic and pissed about everything.
Somebody has to do it. Our rights are being erroded on a daily basis, and it's not even being discussed in the mainstream media. It took the mainstream, what, a month to report on the AT&T records scandal? How much attention is it getting now? How much attention is THIS topic getting? If you wanna be another drone who thinks congress is smarter than you and is doing right by you, feel free. Me, I prefer to examine what they're doing.
Firstly, let me make this clear: we're not talking about me here. This hasn't happened to me, and were it to I'm prepared. I keep ALL of my receipts, I keep records of all calls, etc. If I received such a demand, they'd receive a response, not a check. That being said, there was another article today about a millionaire receiving one of the threat letters from the MPAA. Apparently, his legal costs are going to be on the order of $100,000. I'm thinking that's a best case scenario. If you were to receive the "pay us $2500 or we'll sue" letters from the MPAA what are you going to do? Risk your family's well-being and future on the EXTREMELY SLIM chance you could not only fight it and win, but fight it, win and collect remuneration for your legal fees? Remember, you're not going to find a lawyer who will fight this on a contingency, you have to pay all of those fees up front.
I don't disagree, but going to court costs money. Often times it costs more than just agreeing to the "charge" and walking away. As has been pointed out on so many posts about the MPAA, that's how companies are making their money these days: frivolous lawsuits.
Try making fewer trips to the store.
Thanks, I was going to ask about that. If each individual trip takes so long due to idiots in line, why not just not go as often and buy more when you're there?
Just a friendly warning...a lot of people have been finding that these things come back to haunt them years later. In the States, they have up to, I think, 5 years to collect on a debt. However, if they sell your account to a third-party agency that agency then gets five years to try, too. Most times, once it goes to the third party, that company will IMMEDIATELY report it to the agencies, jack up the amount and call it "interest" or "administrative fees" and hound you until you pay. Your safest bet is to keep the receipts for those purchased CDs forever. These companies are built on the fact that no one does. Similarly, I've heard rumors of rental car companies calling months after you rented the car to get you to pay for "damage". Since no one keeps the receipt that shows there was no damage, most people end up paying it. I'm not sure if this is a growing urban myth or not as I can't find any other evidence of it aside from a couple of people mentioning it, but I err on the side of caution these days when dealing with companies. :)