the reason for the arrest should be recorded within a very short time of it being made (5 minutes, say, in most cases), and the rule about charges being filed should require those charges to relate to the reason for the arrest, just so there's no dodging the consequences of making a wrongful arrest because you eventually got them for something. This wouldn't preclude persuing charges on whatever else, but would mean that persuing those charges wouldn't prevent the initial arrest from being deemed to be false and compensation paid.
But then the system has been rotten for at least 100 years. The Wright brothers figured out that for controlled flight, one needed yaw control, and they invented a method of achieving yaw control. They then (successfully) patented, not their mechanism for yaw control, but yaw control in general. Blocking anyone else from being allowed to put into practice the fundamental basis for flight, but whatever means.
while it's helpful advice about the soft skills, I'd say he's perfectly justified in feeling aggrieved that his abundance of hard skills is being ignored as everyone focuses on his lack of soft skills.
unfortunately, you often don't get that chance because you get asked stupid questions like "Why do you want this job". To which the answer is actually, a variant on "Because I need a job" or "Because this pays more than my current job". However, there's an actual 'right' answer to this question as well. So much interview time is wasted asking that question and getting that answer, and jobs go to the perosn who gives the most convincing answer to that question - even where their answer is probably not true. Hiring based on how well people interview, rather than on how well they can do the job, does organisations plenty of damage. As does assessing how well they deal with various problems or situations by asking for an example from their own experience and seeing how well they answer. The answer could be entirely fake, it could exaggerate, it could neglect to mention that the successful idea was actual someone else's. Judging how well someone will be able to do a job based on their Situation-Task-Action-Result analysis of an unverifiable example of their own choosing is completely useless, and throws away candidates with little experience but oodles of raw intelligence. Infact, with the exception of trades, experience is pretty worthless anyway - most of what the 'experienced' candidate can actually bring with them from their previous employment can be picked up by the 'inexperienced' candidate within a few weeks.
[on a tour of a hospital devoid of any medical activity, but fully staffed with administrators] "And this is J Theatre..." "How much did all this cost?" "Together with radiotherapy and intensive care, two and a quarter million" "Doesn't it appall you that it's not being used?" "Oh no, a very good thing in some ways; prolongs its life, cuts down running costs." "But there are no patients!" "No..., but the essential work of the hospital still has to go on" "Aren't patients the essential work of the hospital?" "Running an organisation of five hunded people is a big job, minister" "But if they weren't here, they wouldn't be here!"
Wrong. You have the right to legal defense - period. Not "the best legal defense available". Big difference.
Correct. Big difference. Your position that you're only entitled to a Lionel Hutz-esque defence irregardless of what's wheeled out to prosecute you results in something that I like to call 'not a fair trial'.
But since you are writing in support of a traitor
But then, I suppose, you were never really interested in a fair trial, were you?
And there are other means available. Someone could set up a bank account for the purpose.
And the difference between an actual bank just cutting off services to a legal defence fund, and a pseudobank doing that same thing is..? Please, enlighten us as to how this is a better solution.
In July 2000, Noga managed to have a renowned Russian sailing ship impounded when it came to France to take part in an international regatta. The "Sedov" was finally allowed to sail from the northwestern port of Brest after a court ruled it could not be held.
Last May, a court froze the accounts of Russia's embassy in Paris, its trade representation and its delegation to UNESCO at Noga's request. The move left the embassy struggling to pay its bills for three months.
Russia successfully appealed, arguing that the freeze violated treaties on diplomatic rights and immunity.
Noga has been pulling these stunts for years. They once convinced a Swiss court to illegally seize artwork which belonged to Russia (which was also chucked out). You imply that a country's stuff can be seized when in a foreign country, but the result is that 20 years later, and after actually having Russia's stuff in its posession Noga has not actually managed to realise anything from grabbing Russian assets because it always has to give them back.
plenty of things may be construed as an act of war - doesn't mean it's in the 'victim's interest to start an all-out war about them. The US can claim that seizing an embassy is an act of war, but it's unlikely to get a lot of international sympathy from other countries who are equally uneasy about US courts just ignoring their own sovereign immunity (although they would probably be equally uneasy about China ignoring the sovereignty of their own embassies), or that there would be any chance of getting a security council resolution against China (because China would just veto it). This leaves the US rolling into an incredibly messy war to invade China, which she doesn't have the resources or manpower to fight, over what are really minimal assets.
Ultimately, if this case does go through, (rather than being squashed before it gets much further), neither government will be willing to suffer the consequences of any actions involved in actually trying to enforce it. Leaving the plantiff with an unenforceable ruling that's not worth the paper it's written on.
and there's probably at least $2.3b worth of US assets on Chinese soil which could be siezed in compensation for an illegal seizure. Where does it end?
But what would stop that from going the other way? The US seizes $2.3b of Chinese assets in the US; China seizes $2.3b worth of US assets in China (ditto for non-payment of bonds). Rinse, repeat, until one side has no assets left in the other's country?
Under the Geneva conventions enforced strictly, they should have been shot on the spot as non-uniformed combatants. POW status is only available to uniformed combatants. If you are trying to blend into the enemy civilian population you get shot, period.
Simply incorrect. No part of the Geneva conventions has EVER authorised anyone getting shot on the spot. If someone is obviously a PoW, they must be treated as a PoW. If they aren't obviously a PoW they must be treated as a civilian until a competent tribunal concludes that they aren't a civilian. No-one gets to make a battlefield decision that someone isn't entitled to the protections of the convention and have them put up against a wall. NO-ONE - doesn't even matter if they have 6 stars*.
Anyone who does is likely to have to answer to a court. It's possible that even if their decision is vindicated (and that the person wasn't entitled to the protection of the convention), they may end up infront of a court because it wasn't their decision to make.
Also, the convention does protect non-uniformed combatants as PoWs in some circumstances. The conventions as a whole err always on the side of not harming people and don't at any point say anything to the effect of "is these conditions are met you may fire at will".
*yes, 6, MacArthur was going to get 6 for the invasion of Japan.
First off, it sounds like it is clearly a step towards a very protected work environment where an employer can no longer fire people without cause.
What almost everyone except you calls 'a good idea'. Also, employers merely being unable to fire people without cause is not very protected, it's the slightest bare minimum of protection.
That is very, very troubling because what it leads to is complete stagnation. If I can't hire someone and a year later terminate them for whatever reason (or no reason), I'm not going to hire them in the first place without extraordinary reasons for doing so
An extraordinary good reason like fundamental expansion of your business which calls for more employees? What you propose is rapid bubbles, followed by unrestrainable busts. You want to be able to take a bunch of people on today, get some short term benefit out of having them now, and then just get rid of them in 12 months time when it's no longer advantageous to you to have them around. This means that the expansion in your business over the last 12 months was essentially fake, and you've made no real expansion at all. It is you who has stagnated.
Another problem is that if I find a employee is making public statements critical of me or my company they need to be gone. I don't need unhappy employees that are there because they need the paycheck. They aren't going to be doing their best work and their attitude will affect relations with customers.
So you propose getting rid of everyone but yourself? Employers who expect genuine enthusiasm from their employees are deluding themselves. They also cleverly take out all the 'overqualified' employees who are obviously not going to be enthusiastic about getting just above minimum wage for their masters-level qualifiactions. Hows that for chalking extra people onto the ranks fo the permanently unemployed?
Now this NLRB ruling appears to say that we can't have a policy that says you can't make comments about the company publiclly? This sounds like trouble because it means that such policies need to be reviewed by labor lawyers.
1) You don't have policies that you expect to be able to rely upon in court checked by a lawyer before you publish them? 2) Why do you need a lawyer to review the text of a policy which you're abolishing?
oh, I agree, but that's not really an arbitrary criteria. (Maybe I'm using 'arbitrary' wrong, I just mean some criteria of their unilateral choosing for which they can present no good reason.)
If a bar were to, say, conclude that people from a certain area of town had a propensity towards starting bar fights, and starting refusing entry based upon the address on their drivers license, that wouldn't be ok (to my view).
private business has EVERY RIGHT to control who enters and who dose not enter the establishment. As long as it is not based on Race, Sex, Religion, Sexual Orientation or things of that nature.
That's your view. My view is that businesses should not be allowed to take part in blanket discrimination based on any arbitrary criteria. Proscribing that only certain attributes are worthy of protection, and everyone else can suck it up is a terribly bad way of doing things. It draws a line, and dares people to dance as close to it as they can.
but they don't, really, the executive has control over the stick. The legislature notionally has control over the funding of the stick, but an executive sufficiently able to control the stick can have it seize its own funding and resources (or force the legislature's hand; as whichever president it was in the early 20th century did by ordering the Navy out, and daring congress to leave it stranded). All the judiciary has is a soapbox to shout from.
Slashdot Mirror
An asshat haberdasher like this one
the reason for the arrest should be recorded within a very short time of it being made (5 minutes, say, in most cases), and the rule about charges being filed should require those charges to relate to the reason for the arrest, just so there's no dodging the consequences of making a wrongful arrest because you eventually got them for something.
This wouldn't preclude persuing charges on whatever else, but would mean that persuing those charges wouldn't prevent the initial arrest from being deemed to be false and compensation paid.
But then the system has been rotten for at least 100 years. The Wright brothers figured out that for controlled flight, one needed yaw control, and they invented a method of achieving yaw control. They then (successfully) patented, not their mechanism for yaw control, but yaw control in general. Blocking anyone else from being allowed to put into practice the fundamental basis for flight, but whatever means.
I think we shall just have to disagree on that. Particularly about co-workers.
Whereas the college graduate has been trained in broader thinking and learning skills that will allow them to develop much further as a professional.
And they're probably wielding more of that often overlooked factor in evaluating candidates - raw intelligence.
while it's helpful advice about the soft skills, I'd say he's perfectly justified in feeling aggrieved that his abundance of hard skills is being ignored as everyone focuses on his lack of soft skills.
unfortunately, you often don't get that chance because you get asked stupid questions like "Why do you want this job". To which the answer is actually, a variant on "Because I need a job" or "Because this pays more than my current job". However, there's an actual 'right' answer to this question as well. So much interview time is wasted asking that question and getting that answer, and jobs go to the perosn who gives the most convincing answer to that question - even where their answer is probably not true.
Hiring based on how well people interview, rather than on how well they can do the job, does organisations plenty of damage. As does assessing how well they deal with various problems or situations by asking for an example from their own experience and seeing how well they answer. The answer could be entirely fake, it could exaggerate, it could neglect to mention that the successful idea was actual someone else's. Judging how well someone will be able to do a job based on their Situation-Task-Action-Result analysis of an unverifiable example of their own choosing is completely useless, and throws away candidates with little experience but oodles of raw intelligence.
Infact, with the exception of trades, experience is pretty worthless anyway - most of what the 'experienced' candidate can actually bring with them from their previous employment can be picked up by the 'inexperienced' candidate within a few weeks.
[on a tour of a hospital devoid of any medical activity, but fully staffed with administrators]
"And this is J Theatre..."
"How much did all this cost?"
"Together with radiotherapy and intensive care, two and a quarter million"
"Doesn't it appall you that it's not being used?"
"Oh no, a very good thing in some ways; prolongs its life, cuts down running costs."
"But there are no patients!"
"No..., but the essential work of the hospital still has to go on"
"Aren't patients the essential work of the hospital?"
"Running an organisation of five hunded people is a big job, minister"
"But if they weren't here, they wouldn't be here!"
Wrong. You have the right to legal defense - period. Not "the best legal defense available". Big difference.
Correct. Big difference. Your position that you're only entitled to a Lionel Hutz-esque defence irregardless of what's wheeled out to prosecute you results in something that I like to call 'not a fair trial'.
But since you are writing in support of a traitor
But then, I suppose, you were never really interested in a fair trial, were you?
And there are other means available. Someone could set up a bank account for the purpose.
And the difference between an actual bank just cutting off services to a legal defence fund, and a pseudobank doing that same thing is..? Please, enlighten us as to how this is a better solution.
From the article:
In July 2000, Noga managed to have a renowned Russian sailing ship impounded when it came to France to take part in an international regatta. The "Sedov" was finally allowed to sail from the northwestern port of Brest after a court ruled it could not be held.
Last May, a court froze the accounts of Russia's embassy in Paris, its trade representation and its delegation to UNESCO at Noga's request. The move left the embassy struggling to pay its bills for three months.
Russia successfully appealed, arguing that the freeze violated treaties on diplomatic rights and immunity.
Noga has been pulling these stunts for years. They once convinced a Swiss court to illegally seize artwork which belonged to Russia (which was also chucked out). You imply that a country's stuff can be seized when in a foreign country, but the result is that 20 years later, and after actually having Russia's stuff in its posession Noga has not actually managed to realise anything from grabbing Russian assets because it always has to give them back.
plenty of things may be construed as an act of war - doesn't mean it's in the 'victim's interest to start an all-out war about them. The US can claim that seizing an embassy is an act of war, but it's unlikely to get a lot of international sympathy from other countries who are equally uneasy about US courts just ignoring their own sovereign immunity (although they would probably be equally uneasy about China ignoring the sovereignty of their own embassies), or that there would be any chance of getting a security council resolution against China (because China would just veto it). This leaves the US rolling into an incredibly messy war to invade China, which she doesn't have the resources or manpower to fight, over what are really minimal assets.
Ultimately, if this case does go through, (rather than being squashed before it gets much further), neither government will be willing to suffer the consequences of any actions involved in actually trying to enforce it. Leaving the plantiff with an unenforceable ruling that's not worth the paper it's written on.
"It says 'one trillion dollars'. But what's this? It also says 'Bank of Zimbabwe'..."
and there's probably at least $2.3b worth of US assets on Chinese soil which could be siezed in compensation for an illegal seizure. Where does it end?
But what would stop that from going the other way? The US seizes $2.3b of Chinese assets in the US; China seizes $2.3b worth of US assets in China (ditto for non-payment of bonds). Rinse, repeat, until one side has no assets left in the other's country?
Under the Geneva conventions enforced strictly, they should have been shot on the spot as non-uniformed combatants. POW status is only available to uniformed combatants. If you are trying to blend into the enemy civilian population you get shot, period.
Simply incorrect. No part of the Geneva conventions has EVER authorised anyone getting shot on the spot. If someone is obviously a PoW, they must be treated as a PoW. If they aren't obviously a PoW they must be treated as a civilian until a competent tribunal concludes that they aren't a civilian. No-one gets to make a battlefield decision that someone isn't entitled to the protections of the convention and have them put up against a wall. NO-ONE - doesn't even matter if they have 6 stars*.
Anyone who does is likely to have to answer to a court. It's possible that even if their decision is vindicated (and that the person wasn't entitled to the protection of the convention), they may end up infront of a court because it wasn't their decision to make.
Also, the convention does protect non-uniformed combatants as PoWs in some circumstances. The conventions as a whole err always on the side of not harming people and don't at any point say anything to the effect of "is these conditions are met you may fire at will".
*yes, 6, MacArthur was going to get 6 for the invasion of Japan.
First off, it sounds like it is clearly a step towards a very protected work environment where an employer can no longer fire people without cause.
What almost everyone except you calls 'a good idea'. Also, employers merely being unable to fire people without cause is not very protected, it's the slightest bare minimum of protection.
That is very, very troubling because what it leads to is complete stagnation. If I can't hire someone and a year later terminate them for whatever reason (or no reason), I'm not going to hire them in the first place without extraordinary reasons for doing so
An extraordinary good reason like fundamental expansion of your business which calls for more employees? What you propose is rapid bubbles, followed by unrestrainable busts. You want to be able to take a bunch of people on today, get some short term benefit out of having them now, and then just get rid of them in 12 months time when it's no longer advantageous to you to have them around. This means that the expansion in your business over the last 12 months was essentially fake, and you've made no real expansion at all. It is you who has stagnated.
Another problem is that if I find a employee is making public statements critical of me or my company they need to be gone. I don't need unhappy employees that are there because they need the paycheck. They aren't going to be doing their best work and their attitude will affect relations with customers.
So you propose getting rid of everyone but yourself? Employers who expect genuine enthusiasm from their employees are deluding themselves. They also cleverly take out all the 'overqualified' employees who are obviously not going to be enthusiastic about getting just above minimum wage for their masters-level qualifiactions. Hows that for chalking extra people onto the ranks fo the permanently unemployed?
Now this NLRB ruling appears to say that we can't have a policy that says you can't make comments about the company publiclly? This sounds like trouble because it means that such policies need to be reviewed by labor lawyers.
1) You don't have policies that you expect to be able to rely upon in court checked by a lawyer before you publish them?
2) Why do you need a lawyer to review the text of a policy which you're abolishing?
How does the ability to file an expensive a futile lawsuit adequately balance the absurd ability of employers to just dump their employees at will?
the order you put those in is very telling...
"where just about everywhere" = "around half the states in the USA".
No other first world country has such flimsy employment law.
that's not the loophole. That you're won't be protected unless a colleague joins in is the loophole.
Wally? is that you?
oh, I agree, but that's not really an arbitrary criteria. (Maybe I'm using 'arbitrary' wrong, I just mean some criteria of their unilateral choosing for which they can present no good reason.)
If a bar were to, say, conclude that people from a certain area of town had a propensity towards starting bar fights, and starting refusing entry based upon the address on their drivers license, that wouldn't be ok (to my view).
private business has EVERY RIGHT to control who enters and who dose not enter the establishment. As long as it is not based on Race, Sex, Religion, Sexual Orientation or things of that nature.
That's your view. My view is that businesses should not be allowed to take part in blanket discrimination based on any arbitrary criteria. Proscribing that only certain attributes are worthy of protection, and everyone else can suck it up is a terribly bad way of doing things. It draws a line, and dares people to dance as close to it as they can.
there was an English revolution? That must have been skipped in my history classes. Was it before or after the civil war?
but they don't, really, the executive has control over the stick. The legislature notionally has control over the funding of the stick, but an executive sufficiently able to control the stick can have it seize its own funding and resources (or force the legislature's hand; as whichever president it was in the early 20th century did by ordering the Navy out, and daring congress to leave it stranded). All the judiciary has is a soapbox to shout from.