Those types of retainers are written with an hourly wage built in. So they are a deposit, not a "retainer". The traditional retainer is like a credit card annual fee. You pay it to have the service. The amount paid counts towards nothing, and is never returned. The deposit only works if the work is paid. A deposit for free work is buying a slave. You pay an upfront cost for free work. It's explicitly illegal, and the laws are quite harsh on it, as slavery was once a thing around these parts.
The contract specifies work for no pay. There is no provision in the contract for a wage for the free work. It's slavery under any definition of slavery that includes indentured servitude (which is legally slavery in the US).
Right, and since it's not returned, regardless of whether work is done, it must be a retainer, as it's obviously not pre-payment to be returned. If it's a pre-payment without return of overpay, then it's an illegal clause because it doesn't indicate an end to the work required if the pre-payment is exceeded, making it slavery (well, indentured servitude, which is legally slavery).
And a retainer without pay is slavery.
The clause to require work is illegal. It will be stricken if enforced, and the employee will retain 100% of the severance and not have to work.
And in this particular case, the employees that agree to the terms will get paid for the additional work that they do with severance at the time of termination, making the severance act like a retainer fee.
A retainer fee pays for availability, but not work performed. So by your words, they are paid to be available, but not paid for the work performed.
And in this particular case, the employees that agree to the terms will get paid for the additional work that they do with severance at the time of termination, making the severance act like a retainer fee.
So it's not a retainer, it's a pre-payment for work. But there is no clause that caps the work hours to those pre-paid for. So you are arguing that the clause, as represented here, is invalid. When the invalid clause is struck, the employee gets to take the severance and run, no obligation.
Though (going off what's been represented as what's in it, I haven't read the contract in full), the "make available" clause is slavery and illegal, thus would be stricken. And the contract, having standard severability clause, would allow the one invalid clause stricken, and the rest remaining, leaving full severance payment and no recourse from the employer.
The slashdotters defending the company are assuming a level of competence in the contract that hasn't been proven. There was no "up to" in the clause shown here, so the clause is simply invalid. You have no legal obligation to follow an invalid clause until you think it's invalid.
They can't win the suit for severance. You can't sign yourself into slavery. So you can sign the contract, and take your money, then not come when they call. I'm sure it has a severability clause, almost all contracts do, so the slavery would be ruled illegal, but the rest of the contract stands, with that one deletion.
The employee would win and never have to go to court.
Not even bother with that. Sign it to get your money, then explain it's slavery to work for no money, and your rate is $500 per hour. What did you need help with again?
Exposing a file isn't treason. Why do you hate the Constitution? Treason is clearly defined there. And an insecure personal server for official business is not on the list.
Seems only idiots want to see the Clintons hang. They've been trying for 20 years, and haven't made anything stick. Either the haters are the dumbest people on the planet, or the Clintons are much smarter than the lying idiot haters assert.
Everyone breaks the law. It's just that right now, Uber is under a microscope, while the taxi companies aren't. I've had about 10% of my taxi rides be illegal. Based on your > 1 = bad standard, you should be after taxis as much or more than Uber. Yet they get a free pass, and Uber gets 100% of your ire. Why?
Because the price is set by people who are neither giving, nor receiving the service. Auto insurance in Texas is regulated to where they have capped profits. They charge enough that they over-profit every time, and must refund. Now, if the price of bodywork increases, the insurance companies make more money. So the person "paying" for the service has an incentive to make the price as high as possible.
Enshrine that in law, and keep it in place for many years, with the insurance company helping guide law makers, and you have a very broken system. The same has happened in health care as well.
I was using it to mean "casual use, not necessarily proper use".
"Icebox" is a cooling box[...]
"Refrigerator" is a cooling box [...]
The operational details are irrelevant to most. People don't use words accurately. They use them accurately enough. Someone who walks into their house with groceries, and shouts out "Bobby, come put the milk in the icebox" there is a 0% chance that Bobby will respond "But Mother, we don't have an icebox, we have a compression cycle cooling box." She could probably say "put it in the cooler" and Bobby would infer she meant the reefer, unless they were in the process of packing for a camping trip, even if they owned an icebox/ice chest/cooler/insulated container/chillybin/whatever they call it where you are.
My example for this language is "broadband". Under the technical definition of "broadband", 14.4k modem is broadband, and 10GE isn't. Though broadband in common usage means "fast" so 10G is more broadband than 14.4k, despite 14.4k being explicitly broadband, and 10GE being explicitly baseband. I'd use 100G as the example, but the official standards aren't set in stone on it, and some are using broadband, and others baseband for the same speeds, something else confusing to the people who only use the common usage of the word, not the technical use of it.
They aren't breaking it, in most cases. They are being accused of breaking it, but followed the existing laws for a private car service in NYC, and were called a taxi anyway. You call for a pickup (or grab a private car from the taxi rank, as the private cars sit in taxi ranks in NYC, but only where they can get away with it, like a private hotel's taxi rank). You then call the number for a pickup later when you are done with your business. That the "call" is on a phone app is irrelevant.
But when Uber follows the law explicitly, they are accused of breaking it. There are other services doing the same service, you just must call, rather than use an app, and nobody is suing them. But Uber does it and gets sued or prosecuted. And you use an accusation as proof they are breaking the law. Uber, and the courts, say Uber is not breaking the law. It's just that the courts take a long time to settle the matter, so the accusations are repeated many more times than the proof otherwise.
They could have been legal everywhere, just join the Taxi cartel, and operate as one. They have been ruled "legal" in some places, and are operating as such. In other places, they have declared themselves legal, and operate under protest.
Most legal systems don't allow a company to test the law without breaking it. You can't file hypothetical cases. You must do it, break the law, then see what happens. That's the only way to do it, so the fact there are legal challenges is proving a fault with the legal system, not Uber.
Nope. If all the checks on drivers worked 100%, then there'd be no contrary examples.
But there are, because they don't work. So why force them on others? Why complain that the main problem with Uber is that the drivers aren't vetted, when it doesn't solve the problem for Taxis?
Ah yes, there to hide bribery deals, though all that's been found on it so far is emails that implicate Bush's invasion of Iraq as treason and a fraud. But none of the conservatives want to talk about bringing murder charges against Bush for all the blood on his hands. Personal responsibility exists only for unwed mothers, and nobody else, right?
Violence inevitably follows such an industry as oversupply makes it more cut-throat.
Like the taxi driver in Germany I ran into. Ended up running away, literally, and hailing a taxi on the street. I went to the taxi rank at the Frankfurt train station, and the second in line was forcing us in his taxi, as the first taxi drove off to avoid the screaming lunatic behind him. Violent abusive taxi drivers happen anywhere, no matter how much regulation. There were what looked like 50 taxis there in the queue for the taxi rank. Infinite supply, regulated, and more expensive and abusive than the taxis I had taken the day before in Italy.
There are bad ones everywhere, and if I'd used Uber, it would have been easier to give a review, than to report a screaming taxi driver I was running away from while he threatened me. I didn't get his company or taxi number, as that would require going back.
And the US taxi regulations were part consumer protection (That's always the public excuse) but part anti-competition. I've never seen a place with medallions that had a sane means of increasing the medallion number as population grew. So most places with medallions have insufficient taxis for the demand.
Depending on your definition of "lower" and "choking" that's exactly what they are doing. They are fairly sharing the pipe among all the users, with those who have used the most getting a smaller share, and those using the least getting a higher share, so someone who tries to use more will always get more, and someone who tries to use less will always get less.
It's not a hard cap at 23G, but a lower priority once you enter the 1%er level.
How much air do you have? You can't use more than two lungs-worth at a time. You can't use more than the number of breaths in a lifetime.
It has no theoretical limit, but has a practical limit.
Much like bandwidth. You can use the "Average" use without limits. But if you run a compression machine designed to liquify the entire atmosphere and store it in a liquid state in the crust, someone will stop you.
Representing that as someone holding their hand over your mouth, suffocating you, makes you sound like an idiot, grasshopper.
Yeah, we keep hearing about them breaking the law (then more quietly later, acquitted and declared "legal" on that charge). They get charged with lots, the taxi cartels have deep pockets, but they are legal more than legal, based on the court decisions on the matter.
So you are asserting that the Clinton server was in a bathroom? Ah yes, treason, much like the conservative cries of "treason" about Carter for not handling the Iran Hostage Crisis better, though the conservatives were quiet when it came out later that Reagan dealt directly with Iran to prevent the release of the hostages, for payment later (an actual case of treason). Every ignorant conservative asserts treason against anyone they don't like, yet don't manage to prove it.
I'm not voting for Hillary. I didn't vote for Bill, either. But the lies told against her are insane.
They are working within the law, just recently winning a case in England. I presume innocence, you presume guilt. I don't "like" them. Your guesses are wrong. Try sticking to the facts.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a form of GOTO, and all that implies.
Those types of retainers are written with an hourly wage built in. So they are a deposit, not a "retainer". The traditional retainer is like a credit card annual fee. You pay it to have the service. The amount paid counts towards nothing, and is never returned. The deposit only works if the work is paid. A deposit for free work is buying a slave. You pay an upfront cost for free work. It's explicitly illegal, and the laws are quite harsh on it, as slavery was once a thing around these parts.
The contract specifies work for no pay. There is no provision in the contract for a wage for the free work. It's slavery under any definition of slavery that includes indentured servitude (which is legally slavery in the US).
Right, and since it's not returned, regardless of whether work is done, it must be a retainer, as it's obviously not pre-payment to be returned. If it's a pre-payment without return of overpay, then it's an illegal clause because it doesn't indicate an end to the work required if the pre-payment is exceeded, making it slavery (well, indentured servitude, which is legally slavery).
And a retainer without pay is slavery.
The clause to require work is illegal. It will be stricken if enforced, and the employee will retain 100% of the severance and not have to work.
How do you pour draino with the cap on? No, the cap prevents the use of it.
And in this particular case, the employees that agree to the terms will get paid for the additional work that they do with severance at the time of termination, making the severance act like a retainer fee.
A retainer fee pays for availability, but not work performed. So by your words, they are paid to be available, but not paid for the work performed.
And in this particular case, the employees that agree to the terms will get paid for the additional work that they do with severance at the time of termination, making the severance act like a retainer fee.
So it's not a retainer, it's a pre-payment for work. But there is no clause that caps the work hours to those pre-paid for. So you are arguing that the clause, as represented here, is invalid. When the invalid clause is struck, the employee gets to take the severance and run, no obligation.
The "advance" was to be available. The pay is for work done, or slavery. As they are not paying for the work done, it's slavery.
Though (going off what's been represented as what's in it, I haven't read the contract in full), the "make available" clause is slavery and illegal, thus would be stricken. And the contract, having standard severability clause, would allow the one invalid clause stricken, and the rest remaining, leaving full severance payment and no recourse from the employer.
The slashdotters defending the company are assuming a level of competence in the contract that hasn't been proven. There was no "up to" in the clause shown here, so the clause is simply invalid. You have no legal obligation to follow an invalid clause until you think it's invalid.
They can't win the suit for severance. You can't sign yourself into slavery. So you can sign the contract, and take your money, then not come when they call. I'm sure it has a severability clause, almost all contracts do, so the slavery would be ruled illegal, but the rest of the contract stands, with that one deletion.
The employee would win and never have to go to court.
Not even bother with that. Sign it to get your money, then explain it's slavery to work for no money, and your rate is $500 per hour. What did you need help with again?
Exposing a file isn't treason. Why do you hate the Constitution? Treason is clearly defined there. And an insecure personal server for official business is not on the list.
Seems only idiots want to see the Clintons hang. They've been trying for 20 years, and haven't made anything stick. Either the haters are the dumbest people on the planet, or the Clintons are much smarter than the lying idiot haters assert.
Everyone breaks the law. It's just that right now, Uber is under a microscope, while the taxi companies aren't. I've had about 10% of my taxi rides be illegal. Based on your > 1 = bad standard, you should be after taxis as much or more than Uber. Yet they get a free pass, and Uber gets 100% of your ire. Why?
Because the price is set by people who are neither giving, nor receiving the service. Auto insurance in Texas is regulated to where they have capped profits. They charge enough that they over-profit every time, and must refund. Now, if the price of bodywork increases, the insurance companies make more money. So the person "paying" for the service has an incentive to make the price as high as possible.
Enshrine that in law, and keep it in place for many years, with the insurance company helping guide law makers, and you have a very broken system. The same has happened in health care as well.
A vernacular is just a local technical jargon,
I was using it to mean "casual use, not necessarily proper use".
"Icebox" is a cooling box[...] "Refrigerator" is a cooling box [...]
The operational details are irrelevant to most. People don't use words accurately. They use them accurately enough. Someone who walks into their house with groceries, and shouts out "Bobby, come put the milk in the icebox" there is a 0% chance that Bobby will respond "But Mother, we don't have an icebox, we have a compression cycle cooling box." She could probably say "put it in the cooler" and Bobby would infer she meant the reefer, unless they were in the process of packing for a camping trip, even if they owned an icebox/ice chest/cooler/insulated container/chillybin/whatever they call it where you are.
My example for this language is "broadband". Under the technical definition of "broadband", 14.4k modem is broadband, and 10GE isn't. Though broadband in common usage means "fast" so 10G is more broadband than 14.4k, despite 14.4k being explicitly broadband, and 10GE being explicitly baseband. I'd use 100G as the example, but the official standards aren't set in stone on it, and some are using broadband, and others baseband for the same speeds, something else confusing to the people who only use the common usage of the word, not the technical use of it.
They aren't breaking it, in most cases. They are being accused of breaking it, but followed the existing laws for a private car service in NYC, and were called a taxi anyway. You call for a pickup (or grab a private car from the taxi rank, as the private cars sit in taxi ranks in NYC, but only where they can get away with it, like a private hotel's taxi rank). You then call the number for a pickup later when you are done with your business. That the "call" is on a phone app is irrelevant.
But when Uber follows the law explicitly, they are accused of breaking it. There are other services doing the same service, you just must call, rather than use an app, and nobody is suing them. But Uber does it and gets sued or prosecuted. And you use an accusation as proof they are breaking the law. Uber, and the courts, say Uber is not breaking the law. It's just that the courts take a long time to settle the matter, so the accusations are repeated many more times than the proof otherwise.
They could have been legal everywhere, just join the Taxi cartel, and operate as one. They have been ruled "legal" in some places, and are operating as such. In other places, they have declared themselves legal, and operate under protest.
Most legal systems don't allow a company to test the law without breaking it. You can't file hypothetical cases. You must do it, break the law, then see what happens. That's the only way to do it, so the fact there are legal challenges is proving a fault with the legal system, not Uber.
Nope. If all the checks on drivers worked 100%, then there'd be no contrary examples.
But there are, because they don't work. So why force them on others? Why complain that the main problem with Uber is that the drivers aren't vetted, when it doesn't solve the problem for Taxis?
Ah yes, there to hide bribery deals, though all that's been found on it so far is emails that implicate Bush's invasion of Iraq as treason and a fraud. But none of the conservatives want to talk about bringing murder charges against Bush for all the blood on his hands. Personal responsibility exists only for unwed mothers, and nobody else, right?
They have buffers, and always have. What they don't have is full downloads that would allow people to "steal" the movies.
Violence inevitably follows such an industry as oversupply makes it more cut-throat.
Like the taxi driver in Germany I ran into. Ended up running away, literally, and hailing a taxi on the street. I went to the taxi rank at the Frankfurt train station, and the second in line was forcing us in his taxi, as the first taxi drove off to avoid the screaming lunatic behind him. Violent abusive taxi drivers happen anywhere, no matter how much regulation. There were what looked like 50 taxis there in the queue for the taxi rank. Infinite supply, regulated, and more expensive and abusive than the taxis I had taken the day before in Italy.
There are bad ones everywhere, and if I'd used Uber, it would have been easier to give a review, than to report a screaming taxi driver I was running away from while he threatened me. I didn't get his company or taxi number, as that would require going back.
And the US taxi regulations were part consumer protection (That's always the public excuse) but part anti-competition. I've never seen a place with medallions that had a sane means of increasing the medallion number as population grew. So most places with medallions have insufficient taxis for the demand.
Depending on your definition of "lower" and "choking" that's exactly what they are doing. They are fairly sharing the pipe among all the users, with those who have used the most getting a smaller share, and those using the least getting a higher share, so someone who tries to use more will always get more, and someone who tries to use less will always get less.
It's not a hard cap at 23G, but a lower priority once you enter the 1%er level.
How much air do you have? You can't use more than two lungs-worth at a time. You can't use more than the number of breaths in a lifetime.
It has no theoretical limit, but has a practical limit.
Much like bandwidth. You can use the "Average" use without limits. But if you run a compression machine designed to liquify the entire atmosphere and store it in a liquid state in the crust, someone will stop you.
Representing that as someone holding their hand over your mouth, suffocating you, makes you sound like an idiot, grasshopper.
Rarely a week goes by where you couldn't post the title "Disruptive Startup fails to deliver". And you'd be right every time.
Yeah, we keep hearing about them breaking the law (then more quietly later, acquitted and declared "legal" on that charge). They get charged with lots, the taxi cartels have deep pockets, but they are legal more than legal, based on the court decisions on the matter.
So you are asserting that the Clinton server was in a bathroom? Ah yes, treason, much like the conservative cries of "treason" about Carter for not handling the Iran Hostage Crisis better, though the conservatives were quiet when it came out later that Reagan dealt directly with Iran to prevent the release of the hostages, for payment later (an actual case of treason). Every ignorant conservative asserts treason against anyone they don't like, yet don't manage to prove it.
I'm not voting for Hillary. I didn't vote for Bill, either. But the lies told against her are insane.
They are working within the law, just recently winning a case in England. I presume innocence, you presume guilt. I don't "like" them. Your guesses are wrong. Try sticking to the facts.