Not at all. It does mean however that we shouldn't make something illegal just because. That's the problem; you COULD kill someone with a knife or gun, but there are millions that prove they won't unless threatened.
So the idea is not to make a stupid blanket law that ends up making everyone less safe... we need only a few laws that are aimed at protecting our rights, not take them away.
If a law exists to prevent something, it probably isn't a good idea. It's lessening freedom, and will be inneffective at what it's trying to prevent anyway. So why bother? But if a law dictates what happens when one person violates another's rights, that's fine.
Of course, in my perfect world, none of those rules apply to corporations, which can be regulated at will. In exchange for the people running the company not being personally liable for the companies actions, they agree that we can regulate them all we want. A company shouldn't be a person. Now.. if you're a sole propriator, you're free of regulation... but you're also now personally liable for the actions of your business. That's how I think things should be.
Well, if you give a reason, you had better have the proof to back it up. If you say you fired someone because they were incompetent, and they were not they can turn around and sue you.. and if there's no proof.. be prepared to lose. If they give no reason, not much you can do though.. which is why I don't like allowing people to be let go for no reason.
At any rate when I said it couldn't be done, I of course meant legally.. not that it was impossible.
That said, on some level I think I can agree with the idea that lawyers are part of our legal justice system, and therefore to be held to a higher standard of conduct than we mere mortals. I mean, I have no problem saying the same thing about judges or police officers. I certainly believe they should be held to higher standards.
Ahh, so special classes of people have special rights and responsiblities? In other words, all men are not created equal? I think we should all be held to the same stanards, and all have the same rights.
The statement is true. Only people that choose to obey the law to begin with will obey a law banning knives. Those that choose to break the law won't mind breaking another one as they mug you with their illegal knife.
This leads to the unexpected result of handgun murders going up after handguns are banned. The "bad guys" know YOU won't have a gun, because they are illegal, and the police can't protect them...
Also, you seem to be assuming that just because the company did it, it was legal.
Finally, being laid off would always be allowed, I think. There's a difference between a layoff and firing. Not being "at-will" means you need a justifiable (that is, it can't be because you don't like their hair style) reason to fire someone. A layoff is such a reason, but also allows you to collect unemployement. I know he's stated that "gross misconduct" is the only way for a company to be able to get out of paying unemployment here.
I think people might be confusing at-will with meaning contractual employment too. I think at-will allows you to be let go for no reason whatsoever, which means not being at-will means you can be fired with good reason, or laid off.
Well, he could be wrong. I also might be missing some context. Or he could be right.
Remember, just because somebody writes something into a contract does not mean it's legally enforceable. It may mean they didn't know about the change, or are still trying to keep control. Don't let your employer tell you your rights; they are cases where they've flat out lied. Ask a lawyer.
Well, I know that's not true. You couldn't fire someone for being black, or because they choose to start a family, for instance. There are federal laws against that.
It may be he's refering to the context of unemployement as well... but he's also said it's really hard for a company here to prove to the state that unemployement should be denied.. so I'm not quite sure what he means... but his take is that there are only two true at will states left.
The fact that it puts too much power in the hands of employers.
Why should an employer have the power to wreck my life because they're having a bad day?
Before you say "no employer would do that," I work for such an employer. And even with VT being "at-will," the way some people have been fired or let go is on shakey ground legally.. just that so far nobody has sued.
Where do you live? According to my HR guy, VT and one other state are the only ones left that still allow "at-will" employment. All the other ones sensibly got rid of it.
In regard to your third comment, I'd have to say that's simply not true. I've contacted their support a few times, and was suprised when I actually got a real email back at 7PM on a Friday night. The email even included the proper fix to my problem.
I wish I could say the same about hardware manufacters though..
I have my mail client set to check every 10 minutes, and I read each message as it comes in.
I have no problem getting right back into what I was doing. That whole 62 seconds number seems pulled out of thin air.
The only time email interups me is if it's asking me to do a task right now. In that case, it's not the email or replying to it that causes me to rethink what I was doing, it's the task.
Right.. but the Use tax applies to citizens within a state buy something from out of state. Of course I don't understand how that survived any Interstate commerce challenges. It seems to be that while indirect, it's still affecting Interstate commerce.
I love how four people challenged what I posted, then I replied to one of them pointing in the right direction to back up what I said, then five other people ignored that reply and posted more "me too" posts. Gotta love/.
Ya, no kidding. The comment seems suspicious too.. "the browser assumes.Net objects are safe." WTF? From what I know, that's not the case at all, as even full trust websites still have.Net code run in a limited sandbox. I'm also suspicious of the claim "there isn't anything MS can do to fix this."
I've heard those claims before.. and nothing ever came of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Not at all. It does mean however that we shouldn't make something illegal just because. That's the problem; you COULD kill someone with a knife or gun, but there are millions that prove they won't unless threatened.
So the idea is not to make a stupid blanket law that ends up making everyone less safe... we need only a few laws that are aimed at protecting our rights, not take them away.
If a law exists to prevent something, it probably isn't a good idea. It's lessening freedom, and will be inneffective at what it's trying to prevent anyway. So why bother? But if a law dictates what happens when one person violates another's rights, that's fine.
Of course, in my perfect world, none of those rules apply to corporations, which can be regulated at will. In exchange for the people running the company not being personally liable for the companies actions, they agree that we can regulate them all we want. A company shouldn't be a person. Now.. if you're a sole propriator, you're free of regulation... but you're also now personally liable for the actions of your business. That's how I think things should be.
Well, if you give a reason, you had better have the proof to back it up. If you say you fired someone because they were incompetent, and they were not they can turn around and sue you.. and if there's no proof.. be prepared to lose. If they give no reason, not much you can do though.. which is why I don't like allowing people to be let go for no reason.
At any rate when I said it couldn't be done, I of course meant legally.. not that it was impossible.
That said, on some level I think I can agree with the idea that lawyers are part of our legal justice system, and therefore to be held to a higher standard of conduct than we mere mortals. I mean, I have no problem saying the same thing about judges or police officers. I certainly believe they should be held to higher standards.
Ahh, so special classes of people have special rights and responsiblities? In other words, all men are not created equal? I think we should all be held to the same stanards, and all have the same rights.
The statement is true. Only people that choose to obey the law to begin with will obey a law banning knives. Those that choose to break the law won't mind breaking another one as they mug you with their illegal knife.
This leads to the unexpected result of handgun murders going up after handguns are banned. The "bad guys" know YOU won't have a gun, because they are illegal, and the police can't protect them...
Well, like I said, what my HR guy said may be under the context of unemployment. If they give no reason, they pretty much have to pay.
Good for you holding their laptop ransom; I would if I were in your situtation. If they called the cops, I'd explain they are keeping my stuff. :-)
So did they give a reason, or not? You supplied one, but did they formally say that was why you were let go? Or did they simply say "you're done."
Perhaps the law was on their side... but I wouldn't be suprised if the lawyer wasn't interested in taking your case even if it was on your side.
At any rate, I'm going to ask the HR guy exactly what he means by "at will".
Actually they are; they yield only a portion of their sovereignty to the Federal government to keep the British at bay.
Nothing like getting your source data from a company trying to sell you an stolen car recovery device...
Are you sure? Did you talk to a lawyer?
Also, you seem to be assuming that just because the company did it, it was legal.
Finally, being laid off would always be allowed, I think. There's a difference between a layoff and firing. Not being "at-will" means you need a justifiable (that is, it can't be because you don't like their hair style) reason to fire someone. A layoff is such a reason, but also allows you to collect unemployement. I know he's stated that "gross misconduct" is the only way for a company to be able to get out of paying unemployment here.
I think people might be confusing at-will with meaning contractual employment too. I think at-will allows you to be let go for no reason whatsoever, which means not being at-will means you can be fired with good reason, or laid off.
Well, he could be wrong. I also might be missing some context. Or he could be right.
Remember, just because somebody writes something into a contract does not mean it's legally enforceable. It may mean they didn't know about the change, or are still trying to keep control. Don't let your employer tell you your rights; they are cases where they've flat out lied. Ask a lawyer.
Well, I know that's not true. You couldn't fire someone for being black, or because they choose to start a family, for instance. There are federal laws against that.
It may be he's refering to the context of unemployement as well... but he's also said it's really hard for a company here to prove to the state that unemployement should be denied.. so I'm not quite sure what he means... but his take is that there are only two true at will states left.
The fact that it puts too much power in the hands of employers.
Why should an employer have the power to wreck my life because they're having a bad day?
Before you say "no employer would do that," I work for such an employer. And even with VT being "at-will," the way some people have been fired or let go is on shakey ground legally.. just that so far nobody has sued.
Where do you live? According to my HR guy, VT and one other state are the only ones left that still allow "at-will" employment. All the other ones sensibly got rid of it.
Well, you can always sue. AFAIK, you can never really waive your right to sue, and clauses stating such are trivially easy to throw out.
Well, there are a few ways to deal with this. One is to educate people on the problem. I'm betting most don't even realize what they are doing.
The other, which works only on highways, would be to simply set your cruise control and steer (but ready to brake).
Maybe because diesel is about a $1 more per gallon than high grade gas?
In regard to your third comment, I'd have to say that's simply not true. I've contacted their support a few times, and was suprised when I actually got a real email back at 7PM on a Friday night. The email even included the proper fix to my problem.
I wish I could say the same about hardware manufacters though..
You mean the servers are taking up space in THEIR racks on THEIR network, right?
They're not trying to get "free rights." It's the exchange you entered into so you could use their "free email."
I have my mail client set to check every 10 minutes, and I read each message as it comes in.
I have no problem getting right back into what I was doing. That whole 62 seconds number seems pulled out of thin air.
The only time email interups me is if it's asking me to do a task right now. In that case, it's not the email or replying to it that causes me to rethink what I was doing, it's the task.
Right.. but the Use tax applies to citizens within a state buy something from out of state. Of course I don't understand how that survived any Interstate commerce challenges. It seems to be that while indirect, it's still affecting Interstate commerce.
There are small towns in VT in the North Country that don't have electricity or indoor plumbing as well.
I love how four people challenged what I posted, then I replied to one of them pointing in the right direction to back up what I said, then five other people ignored that reply and posted more "me too" posts. Gotta love /.
Ya, no kidding. The comment seems suspicious too.. "the browser assumes .Net objects are safe." WTF? From what I know, that's not the case at all, as even full trust websites still have .Net code run in a limited sandbox. I'm also suspicious of the claim "there isn't anything MS can do to fix this."
I've heard those claims before.. and nothing ever came of it.
Guess you've never heard of Thomas Paine?