I think his point is more to the order of the difference between a strict gun law country verses a liberal gun law country. Kind of in regards to the comment about it being London not Texas. The shift was ancillary.
However, I think if cops are actually scared that they will get shot on any shift, they need to find another profession. There are tactics and procedures you can take to avoid being shot at and if you are not called to a live fire incident and are still scared, the training didn't stick and they are a danger to society. They will be ineffective when really needed and probably use their firearms when there is no need.
Well - in the states i have worked in, you weren't eligible for unemployment benefits if you were fired for cause. But I can see your point if there are states that allow it for a wider range of reasons. Job abandoning would be a cause too.
I guess what is important is your ability to be hired elsewhere. We have a lot of people who lost jobs with the recession in 2008 and some of them couldn't find anything comparable for years. Some are working outside their professional fields just to have employment while companies bitch about not being able to find employees and beg to import them.
List in your employment records that some unattached drone will read when they verify your employment history. Each state is different in what they can say about previous employees.
They wouldn't ask you that in all likelihood. What would happen is you list the job in your employment history and note you quit. They start to consider you for a position and check a few of your listed previous employees to see if you are honest. The previous employer says you worked there and was terminated. They might even say why (job abandonment). It likely won't even be the person you worked with, just some HR drone reading from a file. Now you get passed over for other applicants who don't have a discrepancy.
I know what you are saying but how are you going to fight it. They can say company policy is for a notice and if you don't show no matter what you said unless it is I'm quitting in X weeks, that you were fired.
You might be able to fight it and in a year or so get the record corrected.
Your missing the point. It isn't about the asshats you currently work for but the non-asshats you eventually want to work for. They are the ones judging past employment experience to gage if you are worth their time.
This was a restaurant job straight out of highschool. Worked there about a year and a half while saving money for college- back in the late 80s early 90s when you could still work your way through college with only taking minimal loans for books.
Every job i have applied for wanted to know employment history for at least the last five years. Some want 10 years. I didn't use them as a reference, I used them as a job history so there wasn't a 1.5 year gap in my employment records.
Is this somehow different in your part of the world? How many jobs have you applied for and actually received?
That's all good in theory until they list you as terminated for job abandoning. It also doesn't look good to future employers if they just said you quit without notice. They want some sense of stability when investing in a new hire.
Of course if it is a similar field in a close area, they probably already understand the conditions or reasons because you wouldn't be the first to do so.
I quit without notice once and the employer claimed i was fired for not showing up. I actually had to explain that not showing up was proof that I quit at a future interview. I was already into the interview process when the work reference came up but i had already told them I quit the job.
My reason was being expected to work a 12 hour shift just 4 hours after being held over 6 hours on my previous shift making an 18 hour day. They said I would be wrote up if i was late for the next shift and i asked them to look deeply into my eyes and tell me if they saw somebody that cared. The manager said he knew I cared because i just bought a new car. Had that been true, I might have cared. They called about an hour before the next shift asking why I was still home. I said i quit that's why and hung up then unplugged the it from the wall for a couple days (before cell phones were affordable).
"Is" should be "was" since he is now dead. But it doesn't really matter as I was addressing Bernie supporters not Chavez supporters. Chavez, no matter how you want to spin it, did in fact ruin Venuzeala through socialism. It started out great then went to hell in a hand basket and Sanders supporters aren't smart enough or thorough enough to follow it to the conclusion.
Like I said, they would vote for him if you didn't tell them who he was. Some would object after finding out but some likely wouldn't care.
That is not what i said at all. It is well known that the spirit of laws can be violated based on technicalities. Look up the bullet button magazine for an example.
Hillary is one of the smartest people in the room / world.
Look at all the scandals she has been involved with and escaped rather easily because of how she structured it. Her entire public life has been a double dutch Irish sandwich or whatever it was called (Apple's tax avoidance schemes ) that has legally violated the law for her own gain.
I'm not sure any of his supporters think it matters. They probably would support Chavez too if you did not tell them who he was. Hell, I bet a lot of them still wouldn't care if they knew about him or about how well it works out.
Interesting. As I said, I was not aware of that until now.
Even more interesting is that the law cited makes it illegal to contribute not ask for the contributions but I guess you could confer a conspiratorial aspect which tends to have higher penalties often than crimes committed. Of course that is if it can stick (we went through this once before with Charlie tree and the politicians in question skated with barely a blemish on them).
The FBI has only made a recommendation. They are not the final arbitration on if she gets charged. That chick bill had the meeting with on her plane, what's her name, the girl who Hillary already publicly stated she would keep on if elected, Loretta Lynch or something like that has the final say whether charges will be brought or not.
Keep looking. I've seen 18 usc mentioned several times now. I'm posting from my phone else i would link it. But several people have brought it up and discussed it already.
Dude, It is billary. She could get into a tesla, set the auto pilot, sext Bill's last girlfriend and mow down a bunch of toddlers and seniors at a park on bring your grandkids to play day while watching VR porn and people will give her a pass. You are not going to find any number for them to wake up as they will insist it is neither negligence nor intentionally. It was only a byproduct of another goal and collateral damage.
It doesn't say illegal stuff. No one that I know of said illegal stuff. It says that the co chair of a relief fund bill was in charge of is now on the board with her brother and they got a sweet deal after dishing out relief funds. If you go to the vcs website and select press, you will see that the two people in question recently resigned.
I'm going to say it is unethical and looks badly but you are the only one I know of saying it was illegal. Maybe you should do more than pinky swear. When friends and family get a sweet deal after you give aid funds, it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to put 2+2 together.
I checked the first link and it references a book making the claim as well as the website of the company who got the gold permit bragging to investors that they are one of only two able to exploit the gold in hati.The website of the company also listed Hillary's brother as being on the board of directors.
I'm not sure how you consider that not relevant. I'm betting you never bothered looking and are just spouting nonsense in order to justify your wilful stupidity.
Hurting revenue is not the basis in law for the suit, it is the basis of restitution and harm proving merit of the suit for standing. Although copyright has statutory damages and statutory rights to sue, most other cases need to show standing. These lawyers are throwing everything possible out to ensure something sticks.
Nice deflection there. I bet you even won your kindergarten debate class too. The links cite references for fucks sake. It is absolutely nothing like that. It if anything is like Wikipedia having factual content because they do the exact same thing - cite their reference.
Now you could look at the links and decide they are unsubstantiated opinions or they are factual. Anything else is intellectually dishonest and judging from your comment, you are comfortable with dishonesty.
Slashdot Mirror
I think his point is more to the order of the difference between a strict gun law country verses a liberal gun law country. Kind of in regards to the comment about it being London not Texas. The shift was ancillary.
However, I think if cops are actually scared that they will get shot on any shift, they need to find another profession. There are tactics and procedures you can take to avoid being shot at and if you are not called to a live fire incident and are still scared, the training didn't stick and they are a danger to society. They will be ineffective when really needed and probably use their firearms when there is no need.
Well - in the states i have worked in, you weren't eligible for unemployment benefits if you were fired for cause. But I can see your point if there are states that allow it for a wider range of reasons. Job abandoning would be a cause too.
I guess what is important is your ability to be hired elsewhere. We have a lot of people who lost jobs with the recession in 2008 and some of them couldn't find anything comparable for years. Some are working outside their professional fields just to have employment while companies bitch about not being able to find employees and beg to import them.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency...
Federal laws do not always apply unless there is federal jurisdiction.
List in your employment records that some unattached drone will read when they verify your employment history. Each state is different in what they can say about previous employees.
They wouldn't ask you that in all likelihood. What would happen is you list the job in your employment history and note you quit. They start to consider you for a position and check a few of your listed previous employees to see if you are honest. The previous employer says you worked there and was terminated. They might even say why (job abandonment). It likely won't even be the person you worked with, just some HR drone reading from a file. Now you get passed over for other applicants who don't have a discrepancy.
I know what you are saying but how are you going to fight it. They can say company policy is for a notice and if you don't show no matter what you said unless it is I'm quitting in X weeks, that you were fired.
You might be able to fight it and in a year or so get the record corrected.
Your missing the point. It isn't about the asshats you currently work for but the non-asshats you eventually want to work for. They are the ones judging past employment experience to gage if you are worth their time.
This was a restaurant job straight out of highschool. Worked there about a year and a half while saving money for college- back in the late 80s early 90s when you could still work your way through college with only taking minimal loans for books.
Every job i have applied for wanted to know employment history for at least the last five years. Some want 10 years. I didn't use them as a reference, I used them as a job history so there wasn't a 1.5 year gap in my employment records.
Is this somehow different in your part of the world? How many jobs have you applied for and actually received?
That's all good in theory until they list you as terminated for job abandoning. It also doesn't look good to future employers if they just said you quit without notice. They want some sense of stability when investing in a new hire.
Of course if it is a similar field in a close area, they probably already understand the conditions or reasons because you wouldn't be the first to do so.
I quit without notice once and the employer claimed i was fired for not showing up. I actually had to explain that not showing up was proof that I quit at a future interview. I was already into the interview process when the work reference came up but i had already told them I quit the job.
My reason was being expected to work a 12 hour shift just 4 hours after being held over 6 hours on my previous shift making an 18 hour day. They said I would be wrote up if i was late for the next shift and i asked them to look deeply into my eyes and tell me if they saw somebody that cared. The manager said he knew I cared because i just bought a new car. Had that been true, I might have cared. They called about an hour before the next shift asking why I was still home. I said i quit that's why and hung up then unplugged the it from the wall for a couple days (before cell phones were affordable).
"Is" should be "was" since he is now dead. But it doesn't really matter as I was addressing Bernie supporters not Chavez supporters. Chavez, no matter how you want to spin it, did in fact ruin Venuzeala through socialism. It started out great then went to hell in a hand basket and Sanders supporters aren't smart enough or thorough enough to follow it to the conclusion.
Like I said, they would vote for him if you didn't tell them who he was. Some would object after finding out but some likely wouldn't care.
That is not what i said at all. It is well known that the spirit of laws can be violated based on technicalities. Look up the bullet button magazine for an example.
Secret and top secret was some of the words comey used. He also said they were classified before being emailed.
Find and read his statement.
Hillary is one of the smartest people in the room / world.
Look at all the scandals she has been involved with and escaped rather easily because of how she structured it. Her entire public life has been a double dutch Irish sandwich or whatever it was called (Apple's tax avoidance schemes ) that has legally violated the law for her own gain.
I'm not sure any of his supporters think it matters. They probably would support Chavez too if you did not tell them who he was. Hell, I bet a lot of them still wouldn't care if they knew about him or about how well it works out.
Interesting. As I said, I was not aware of that until now.
Even more interesting is that the law cited makes it illegal to contribute not ask for the contributions but I guess you could confer a conspiratorial aspect which tends to have higher penalties often than crimes committed. Of course that is if it can stick (we went through this once before with Charlie tree and the politicians in question skated with barely a blemish on them).
Anyways, thanks for the reference.
You got a credible cite for that? This is the first I heard that one.
By credible, i mean an actual news source not someone's blog or op-ed piece.
Well, sort of.
The FBI has only made a recommendation. They are not the final arbitration on if she gets charged. That chick bill had the meeting with on her plane, what's her name, the girl who Hillary already publicly stated she would keep on if elected, Loretta Lynch or something like that has the final say whether charges will be brought or not.
Keep looking. I've seen 18 usc mentioned several times now. I'm posting from my phone else i would link it. But several people have brought it up and discussed it already.
Dude, It is billary. She could get into a tesla, set the auto pilot, sext Bill's last girlfriend and mow down a bunch of toddlers and seniors at a park on bring your grandkids to play day while watching VR porn and people will give her a pass. You are not going to find any number for them to wake up as they will insist it is neither negligence nor intentionally. It was only a byproduct of another goal and collateral damage.
It doesn't say illegal stuff. No one that I know of said illegal stuff. It says that the co chair of a relief fund bill was in charge of is now on the board with her brother and they got a sweet deal after dishing out relief funds. If you go to the vcs website and select press, you will see that the two people in question recently resigned.
I'm going to say it is unethical and looks badly but you are the only one I know of saying it was illegal. Maybe you should do more than pinky swear. When friends and family get a sweet deal after you give aid funds, it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to put 2+2 together.
I checked the first link and it references a book making the claim as well as the website of the company who got the gold permit bragging to investors that they are one of only two able to exploit the gold in hati.The website of the company also listed Hillary's brother as being on the board of directors.
I'm not sure how you consider that not relevant. I'm betting you never bothered looking and are just spouting nonsense in order to justify your wilful stupidity.
Hurting revenue is not the basis in law for the suit, it is the basis of restitution and harm proving merit of the suit for standing. Although copyright has statutory damages and statutory rights to sue, most other cases need to show standing. These lawyers are throwing everything possible out to ensure something sticks.
Nice deflection there. I bet you even won your kindergarten debate class too. The links cite references for fucks sake. It is absolutely nothing like that. It if anything is like Wikipedia having factual content because they do the exact same thing - cite their reference.
Now you could look at the links and decide they are unsubstantiated opinions or they are factual. Anything else is intellectually dishonest and judging from your comment, you are comfortable with dishonesty.