I've only ever worked in at-will states, and all had statements about conduct, which rescind many of the protections offered by "at will". What states have you worked in?
Where are you from? I've worked outside the US, and they are less common in some areas because the contract terms are mainly set by the govenrment. The contract was "we agree to employment under the Employment law of 1984" or whatever.
Strange. I've never seen an actual employment contract,
So you never got in writing the amount you would be working for? I've never worked a place where that wasn't in a contract signed by both people, 5 states, 3 countries.
It says "don't hire them because they suck".... a comment that I'm afraid I've read American's making about Indian developers many many times.
Racism, sure. But not illegal, as nationality is only protected when the foreigner has US residency. You can't discriminate against an Indian with a US Green Card, but you can discriminate against a H1-B applicant still living in the foreign country.
Bah, that disease was caused by the federal government. The modern outbreak of it was caused by infected animals kept insecurely who transmitted carrier ticks to deer who swam from Long Island to Lyme, CT. It's not a coincidence that Lyme is the closest City to Plum Island disease research center. But it was the FDA, not the CDC that caused it. It's all part of the master plan to blame the federal government for everything. We should disband the federal government. Isn't that the goal of the conservatives? That's the ultimate states rights move. Civil War II!
It is nearly impossible to estimate how many U.S. citizens have dual -- or even triple -- citizenships, says Michael A. Olivas, an immigration professor at the University of Houston Law Center. [...]
The number is likely well over 1 million, he says, and is probably several times that.
So, I can use one passport to go in and out of Cuba, Africa, Iraq, or wherever, and use the US passport for going in and out of the USA. How would they track that?
It would be odd for a company to remove from itself the ability to fire "because they feel like it".
You say that, but in all my contracts, they have done so. Because it lowers lawsuits when they have a stated discipline policy. Unless, of course, if they don't follow it.
That's a hateful attack on liberals that never defines the syndrome it talks about, but mentions some things about it, leaving obvious gaps for the author's connotative dissonance to claim no true scotsman for any counterexamples. Wortheless blog that's a not-so-thinly veiled attack on mythical "liberals".
Refusing to answer a single question in a series of questions will be held against you, but refusing to answer any (with or without comment as to why) still can't be used against you.
You can get your own cable modem for under $200 and use that.
Back when the ruling first came down that they (all cable providers) had to allow 3rd party modems, the cable companies tried to dissuade people from doing it by changing setting regularly, hoping to break compatibility with 3rd party modems. Have they stopped that practice? I haven't been in an area with cable modems for a while.
Since you are implying I'm wrong, you must be the one with inside information. There is no release by their lawyers, and more than one source claims to have contacted Comcast for a statement without result. Either there's a media conspiracy to make Comcast look bad, or Comcast isn't saying anything.
Comcast isn't saying anything through their lawyers. As much as "silence isn't a confession" applies in the courts, the opposite applies in media. The only reason they would be quiet is if they knew they were wrong, so it's evidence of wrongdoing.
I have one on my desk right here. I have multiple from multiple states filed at home. A "contract" is an agreement. Even a verbal agreement is a contract. But most employment contracts are written, because the verbal ones get people sued, even in right to work states.
Those prove that there's at least a legal discussion about it. It's not as obvious as you assert. And that Texas is officially a "right-to-work" state.
There is always "potential for litigation" if that applied, nobody would ever talk. And they do, so nobody follows your silly rules. And most companies know that if they lose the PR but win in court, it's a net loss, so they have PR work with Legal to make statements. That they aren't indicates they don't care. Not that they do care.
But they work anyway. Would you rather be right (And out 6 months of legal fees, and probably lose your new job anyway because of the battle), or just follow the invalid contract? Most people pick the latter.
One is a political grouping "Right to work" and the other is employment law "at will employment". Most employment in right to work states is at will. Thus, I didn't confuse the two, but I was talking about a specific place. If it's both, then your complaint is invalid. I even named it. If Texas is both, and it certainly was when I was employed there, then my statements are 100% correct, even if I didn't use the terminology you'd prefer.
I had the same problem once. The power company insists that they put a flier in my mailbox. I couldn't prove they didn't, so nobody cared, not the PUC, not the utility.
My state, for example, is "right to work". Which means, unless it expressly violates some protection (disabled, race, gender, etc): I can fire you for anything at all. I can fire you because my astrologer said I should fire anyone who wore a red shirt in today.
You've obviously never worked for a corporation. Anyone larger than a 2-man shop has larger, longer contracts. They almost always explain disciplinary actions, and unacceptable actions. I.e. showing up to work drunk is subject to immediate termination.
If those are in your contract (And I've worked in multiple at-will states, and they were always in there for companies larger than 2-people), then they must follow their contract.
We don't have his contract, so all the people asserting they know for a fact it's legal to fire him for it are lying sacks of shit. You don't know it, you can't know it. And you are leveraging your ignorance of employment contracts to claim to be an expert in employment law because you read about "right to work" once on Wikipedia.
Slashdot Mirror
And when they pay you 1/10th what was agreed, you can't complain because you have no offer in writing, nor contract with pay or benefits listed?
What states have you worked in?
I've only ever worked in at-will states, and all had statements about conduct, which rescind many of the protections offered by "at will". What states have you worked in?
Strange. I've never seen an actual employment contract,
So you never got in writing the amount you would be working for? I've never worked a place where that wasn't in a contract signed by both people, 5 states, 3 countries.
When trying to "close the borders" a 90% solution is not much better than a 10% solution.
It says "don't hire them because they suck" .... a comment that I'm afraid I've read American's making about Indian developers many many times.
Racism, sure. But not illegal, as nationality is only protected when the foreigner has US residency. You can't discriminate against an Indian with a US Green Card, but you can discriminate against a H1-B applicant still living in the foreign country.
Bah, that disease was caused by the federal government. The modern outbreak of it was caused by infected animals kept insecurely who transmitted carrier ticks to deer who swam from Long Island to Lyme, CT. It's not a coincidence that Lyme is the closest City to Plum Island disease research center. But it was the FDA, not the CDC that caused it. It's all part of the master plan to blame the federal government for everything. We should disband the federal government. Isn't that the goal of the conservatives? That's the ultimate states rights move. Civil War II!
Or...you know....look at their travel history before letting them in the US. Isn't that the job of customs at the airports?
This guy lied on his entry paperwork, so how would that work out for tracking them?
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07...
It is nearly impossible to estimate how many U.S. citizens have dual -- or even triple -- citizenships, says Michael A. Olivas, an immigration professor at the University of Houston Law Center.
[...]
The number is likely well over 1 million, he says, and is probably several times that.
So, I can use one passport to go in and out of Cuba, Africa, Iraq, or wherever, and use the US passport for going in and out of the USA. How would they track that?
It would be odd for a company to remove from itself the ability to fire "because they feel like it".
You say that, but in all my contracts, they have done so. Because it lowers lawsuits when they have a stated discipline policy. Unless, of course, if they don't follow it.
You've never heard of the capitalistic resource-consuming American Race? Go watch Leave it to Beaver for a documentary on The American Race.
Your ignorance (willful or not) is not a compelling argument.
That's a hateful attack on liberals that never defines the syndrome it talks about, but mentions some things about it, leaving obvious gaps for the author's connotative dissonance to claim no true scotsman for any counterexamples. Wortheless blog that's a not-so-thinly veiled attack on mythical "liberals".
Refusing to answer a single question in a series of questions will be held against you, but refusing to answer any (with or without comment as to why) still can't be used against you.
You can get your own cable modem for under $200 and use that.
Back when the ruling first came down that they (all cable providers) had to allow 3rd party modems, the cable companies tried to dissuade people from doing it by changing setting regularly, hoping to break compatibility with 3rd party modems. Have they stopped that practice? I haven't been in an area with cable modems for a while.
Since you are implying I'm wrong, you must be the one with inside information. There is no release by their lawyers, and more than one source claims to have contacted Comcast for a statement without result. Either there's a media conspiracy to make Comcast look bad, or Comcast isn't saying anything.
Comcast isn't saying anything through their lawyers. As much as "silence isn't a confession" applies in the courts, the opposite applies in media. The only reason they would be quiet is if they knew they were wrong, so it's evidence of wrongdoing.
I have one on my desk right here. I have multiple from multiple states filed at home. A "contract" is an agreement. Even a verbal agreement is a contract. But most employment contracts are written, because the verbal ones get people sued, even in right to work states.
No, they aren't. I know people in Texas who have gone to court over non-competes in a "right-to-work" state. You are wrong.
http://www.texasnoncompetelaw.... https://www.texasattorneygener...
Those prove that there's at least a legal discussion about it. It's not as obvious as you assert. And that Texas is officially a "right-to-work" state.
There is always "potential for litigation" if that applied, nobody would ever talk. And they do, so nobody follows your silly rules. And most companies know that if they lose the PR but win in court, it's a net loss, so they have PR work with Legal to make statements. That they aren't indicates they don't care. Not that they do care.
But they work anyway. Would you rather be right (And out 6 months of legal fees, and probably lose your new job anyway because of the battle), or just follow the invalid contract? Most people pick the latter.
One is a political grouping "Right to work" and the other is employment law "at will employment". Most employment in right to work states is at will. Thus, I didn't confuse the two, but I was talking about a specific place. If it's both, then your complaint is invalid. I even named it. If Texas is both, and it certainly was when I was employed there, then my statements are 100% correct, even if I didn't use the terminology you'd prefer.
There have only been terms of employment which I have been required to follow. That is not the same thing.
Yes, it is the same thing. Did you sign their copy of the terms? Then it's a contract. A contract is agreed upon terms. You indicate you had that.
I had the same problem once. The power company insists that they put a flier in my mailbox. I couldn't prove they didn't, so nobody cared, not the PUC, not the utility.
You've never worked? That explains a lot. Even when I worked temp jobs or summer jobs (in a "right to work" state), I always had a contract.
My state, for example, is "right to work". Which means, unless it expressly violates some protection (disabled, race, gender, etc): I can fire you for anything at all. I can fire you because my astrologer said I should fire anyone who wore a red shirt in today.
You've obviously never worked for a corporation. Anyone larger than a 2-man shop has larger, longer contracts. They almost always explain disciplinary actions, and unacceptable actions. I.e. showing up to work drunk is subject to immediate termination.
If those are in your contract (And I've worked in multiple at-will states, and they were always in there for companies larger than 2-people), then they must follow their contract.
We don't have his contract, so all the people asserting they know for a fact it's legal to fire him for it are lying sacks of shit. You don't know it, you can't know it. And you are leveraging your ignorance of employment contracts to claim to be an expert in employment law because you read about "right to work" once on Wikipedia.
It's not for lack of trying. One guy is talking. Comcast isn't contradicting him. That's the whole story.
Any defense of Comcast is the unsubstantiated, fabricated part.