Really depends on the employee's attitude towards the job, how much they need the job, if it's a career, etc. e.g. A summer employee might care more about a relationship than keeping a temp job which is ending in a month anyway.
Believe it or not, "job" doesn't define everyone's "life." There are no hard-and-fast answers to such things, which is why "zero tolerance" policies are garbage.
I don't care much for watching team sports myself, but I can understand that some people like them. I'd rather go DO sports, hike, ride my bike, go to the beach and swim.
I'm not weird at all -- an employer's power over an employee depends on how much the employee needs the job and/or the company. If the employee is well set-up in life, the employer has next to no power over them.
I can get Netflix for under $10/mo? Channels? Who needs channels? A la carte movies, shows, and documentaries. If I want to watch sports, I can watch some on air HDTV or just go to a bar.
Theoretically, any relationship has the possibility of retaliation. Live with someone? One person often owns the house. There is no such thing as "true consent" if you nit-pick and dig deep enough.
Other women wanted tank top lady fired? Why didn't they all just dress comfortably and enjoy the loose discipline?
Also, how can a US firm do business in Caracas without being sanctioned and/or expropriated? (!)
CEO might be mortgaged to the hilt, employee might have a paid-off home and rental property. You can't always judge who's more free and who has more power based on title. Blanket policies are bad. Zero tolerance = zero thought.
He probably left with a nice severance "package" and can walk out, start his own company, get a teaching gig, move to the beach in Thailand, etc. Who has the last laugh? He's hardly impoverished.
Relationship was consensual. Policy is wrong -- employers should butt out of employees'/managers' private lives when they're off the clock.
He was right to keep his private life private -- shame that someone snitched on him. Petty snitches make life worse for everyone.
Cars can pass the bicycles -- cars are hardly "clogging." If anything, wide cars are clogging roads for narrower bikes and motorcycles. We'll decide where we belong, not your place to preach at us, son.
The smarter way would be to pay students or people in vocational training programs a stipend for a maximum of a certain number of years. Encourage self-improvement without the situation becoming permanent.
Actually, there's a lot of outrage. Not separating families is a primary driver for bail reform and elimination of cash bail (i.e. releasing most people accused of crimes without bail) in states that are doing so.
Which is why more and more states are trending towards release without bail -- own recognizance -- when possible. States are trying to reform a deliberately cruel system while DC seems to want to perpetuate it.
Slashdot Mirror
The iPhones of the future will be crippled -- fixed that for y'all.
And the European/EU rules are right. Employers should stay the fuck out of employees' private lives.
Really depends on the employee's attitude towards the job, how much they need the job, if it's a career, etc. e.g. A summer employee might care more about a relationship than keeping a temp job which is ending in a month anyway.
Believe it or not, "job" doesn't define everyone's "life." There are no hard-and-fast answers to such things, which is why "zero tolerance" policies are garbage.
I don't care much for watching team sports myself, but I can understand that some people like them. I'd rather go DO sports, hike, ride my bike, go to the beach and swim.
If it means that I have to drink wine and eat fish or go vege for a month, it's no big tragedy. Free time >> Beer and meat.
I'm not weird at all -- an employer's power over an employee depends on how much the employee needs the job and/or the company. If the employee is well set-up in life, the employer has next to no power over them.
I can get Netflix for under $10/mo? Channels? Who needs channels? A la carte movies, shows, and documentaries. If I want to watch sports, I can watch some on air HDTV or just go to a bar.
People play favorites -- deal with it. The answer shouldn't be more "zero tolerance" nonsense.
Theoretically, any relationship has the possibility of retaliation. Live with someone? One person often owns the house. There is no such thing as "true consent" if you nit-pick and dig deep enough.
Other women wanted tank top lady fired? Why didn't they all just dress comfortably and enjoy the loose discipline? Also, how can a US firm do business in Caracas without being sanctioned and/or expropriated? (!)
CEO might be mortgaged to the hilt, employee might have a paid-off home and rental property. You can't always judge who's more free and who has more power based on title. Blanket policies are bad. Zero tolerance = zero thought.
He probably left with a nice severance "package" and can walk out, start his own company, get a teaching gig, move to the beach in Thailand, etc. Who has the last laugh? He's hardly impoverished.
Fortunately, private life isn't the military -- employees shouldn't be treated like soldiers.
Mod parent up -- I will add to their statements that US culture is far too prudish in all respects.
Relationship was consensual. Policy is wrong -- employers should butt out of employees'/managers' private lives when they're off the clock. He was right to keep his private life private -- shame that someone snitched on him. Petty snitches make life worse for everyone.
Cars can pass the bicycles -- cars are hardly "clogging." If anything, wide cars are clogging roads for narrower bikes and motorcycles. We'll decide where we belong, not your place to preach at us, son.
How much damage do cyclists do to roads compared to trucks or cages?
It's the cyclists' choice. Don't be such a nannystater.
Solution is don't remove the stipend. Make the stipend an income floor, above which you can make money, whether it's $1000/yr or $100,000.
Sure they can -- don't offer anyone without citizenship most social services.
The smarter way would be to pay students or people in vocational training programs a stipend for a maximum of a certain number of years. Encourage self-improvement without the situation becoming permanent.
Actually, there's a lot of outrage. Not separating families is a primary driver for bail reform and elimination of cash bail (i.e. releasing most people accused of crimes without bail) in states that are doing so.
Open the floodgates! We're at full employment -- why are you a coward?
By "maker", you mean Mr. Scratch?
Which is why more and more states are trending towards release without bail -- own recognizance -- when possible. States are trying to reform a deliberately cruel system while DC seems to want to perpetuate it.