I can certainly understand your aggrivation at having more money withheld from your paycheck than you expected, and I agree that getting a big refund in January/February of next year is little consolation when you need the money now. In the future, you may be able to contact your company's payroll department before you receive your lump-sum payment and ask them to change the default withholding for you.
At my company, for instance, I can have payroll withhold whatever I tell them to withhold. So for my own paychecks, I have them withhold nothing all year and then do all the withholding in December when I know exactly what needs to be withheld based on the year's income. That way, I get the use of my money all year, rather than giving the US Treasury an interest-free loan. I don't know if your employer will be as flexible, but it works for me.
I'm sorry that you are having difficulty finding work. When I am looking for work, I typically just call everyone I know and tell them I need a job. Invariably, somebody either needs me or knows someone who needs me, or knows someone who knows someone... I think the technical term for it is "networking," but I just call it "putting food on the table."
I'm pretty sure that Verizon and BellSouth do not serve the same markets. That's like saying Verizon was colluding with Ethiopia Telecom. Maybe they were and maybe they weren't, but at the end of the day, who does it affect?
In Economics, collusion refers to the cooperation of two firms that would otherwise be expected to compete with each other. An example of collusion might be if a particular community only had two options for broadband: DSL from Verizon and Cable Modem from Comcast. If Comcast and Verizon decided to cooperate and set the price of both DSL and Cable Modem at $65 per month inststead of competing with each other, that would be collusion.
I'm pretty sure I don't understand a word of what you just said. Let me try, though.
The IRS does not set the tax rates. Congress does. So you can complain to them if you feel you are paying too much in taxes.
The money that was withheld was lost, but only temporarily. You certainly got that money back when you filed your income tax return for that year. If you wanted the money sooner, there are some tricks you can pull. But the fact still remains, your tax bill was not increased as a direct result of the payment being received in a lump sum.
Actually, you are not taxed any higher on a lump-sum payment. Look at your 1040. Do you see a line item for lump-sum payments? Of course not. They are taxed at the same rate as ordinary income.
There is, however, a difference in withholding on a lump-sum payment. The payroll computer sees you're getting $20,000 in a paycheck and assumes that you make $400,000 per year and withholds at a higher tax bracket. That is why it withholds so much.
You should have noticed a much-larger-than-usual refund on your taxes for that year as a result of the over-withholding.
All the boss would have had to have said was, "I know that there are rumors, but no decision has been made yet. A decision is expected next week, though, so if you can hold off on signing for a week, it might be financially safer."
They sold themselves to the upper class because they had no other choice. It was either that, or die of starvation.
"Be my slave or die" is not the same thing as "voluntary".
Did you EVER have to take a drug test for a job?
Yes. It's been many years since, but yes.
drug tests can't tell an employer when you did them. If you did them at home, then it's none of their business. Period.
That's a lot of punctuation. Anyhow, it's not that simple. If you take a few hits of coke at home and then drive your car on company business (going to call on a client, for instance), your employer could be found to be liable.
Pre-employment drug screenings used to be relatively rare, now they're the norm.
I'll ask around. The last time I heard of someone taking a drug screen for a job was when I was a teenager.
it's about companies firing you for SMOKING IN YOUR OWN HOME!
Have you seen the price of medical insurance these days? When you get lung cancer, guess who gets to pay for your treatment. Many employers have self-funded insurance.
I don't know what country you live in
The US.
Look, maybe you should try working for a small business. They tend to make more rational decisions because they can't afford to absorb inefficiencies like firing people for wearing green socks.
And, by the way, my sword analogy was perfect. Just don't show up to the office wielding a katana. Despite being so good, it's still only an analogy.
The world does not exist to make your life comfortable. Sometimes you get thrown a curveball, like a job loss. Yes, you might have to "trim off the excesses" if that happens.
The American dream is that I work hard and well, and I keep my job and reap the benefits of my hard work.
No, that is not the American Dream. The American Dream is that through hard work and determination, you can achieve a better life for yourself. There is no "at the same employer" clause. Perhaps you are too coddled if that is what you expect. Heck, you aren't even willing to suspend your Netflix subscription in case of a job loss.
Yes, "life's not fair". That doesn't mean we have to be, too. Life doesn't have a choice, we do. Don't you want something better for your daughter?
Won't somebody pleeeeeeaaaaaasssssssssseeeeeeee think of the CHILDREN??!!11oneone I'm going to recommend to you a book: 1401359418 For all you know, losing that job could have been the best thing to have happened to you.
And, is that really your solution? Everyone should work for themselves?
No, that was my solution for you. You said, "Your destiny is not in your hands as long as you're employed by another. Period." So I replied, "So start your own company, then."
Just to clarify, yes I think that employers should be able to staff as they see fit.
Ok, I suppose I could almost see your point, if the entire world revolved around "The Spoonman", and "loss of life and limb" were the same thing as "loss of job". It turns out you are not at the center of the universe, so you make no sense.
There are two parties to each situation, and one of the parties (your old boss) has the right to do what he did. Employers can and should be allowed to staff as they see fit; whereas, motorists do not and should not have the right to get wasted and mow down a gaggle of nuns in a Ford Monstrosity.
There exists a nontrivial difference between getting your life ruined by a drunk driver and "ruined" by a former manager. Surely you can agree that "never being able to walk again" is way different from "Doh, got fired from a job. Better go get another."
I'm going to assert that your analogy sucks. Oh wait, I guess I already asserted that. I shall now assert that your analogy still sucks.
As I've already explained to you, your drunk driving analogy sucks. Drop it. It has no relevance. Read up on tort law if you still don't understand why. Employment termination is not a tort. If you feel your insurance premiums are too much, switch to GEICO or take the bus.
fools like you will defend their ability to do it for some demented reason. You wanna walk your merry way down to voluntary slavery, you go right ahead.
What, exactly, is "voluntary slavery?" This is not a concept that I am familiar with, and my dictionary claims that "voluntary" is the very antithesis of "slavery". Perhaps I need a new dictionary.
Did you have to take a drug test for your current job?
No.
Hell, you can buy powdered urine on the Internet for $30 and pass your test if you want.
Someone would purchase my urine for $30? Clearly, I need a career change. Water is very cheap these days.
How 'bout this article about signing away your prior inventions
Don't sign it. Negotiate.
The companies that ban smoking, even at home (there's a few out there. It's controversal, but not illegal.)
I ban smoking in my rental properties. Smokers are not a protected class. Not sure what this has to do with getting fired, but whatever.
What about when they decide you need an RFID tag implanted for their security?
There are other companies to work for.
Hey, people lose SecureID tags all the time, it's just good business, those things ar $70-80 each!
I dunno. I charge my residents for replacement keys. Why not make the clumsy employee purchase a new tag? Probably will be the last time he loses it.
Not that any of that has anything to do with employment termination.
Since you talk about overhearing managers talk about firing someone for having a kid, how about my buddy who, upon seeing his project was going to require the salaried employees (himself included) to work 80 hour weeks, negotiated to become hourly instead of salaried. He even threatened to quit, and wound up doing so when management thought they were calling his bluff. They wound up hiring him back on an hourly basis, and he made an obscene amount of money. He had no wife and kids. Why not? Me, I could never do that. I wouldn't want to go home one day and wonder why my daughter is suddenly 10 years older.
Anyhow, as I was saying, the sword cuts both ways, and the employee gets to wield it as does the employer.
I'm sure you would feel differently if you were forced to use up that fund prior to your daughter's birth because your employer didn't like your non-work related activities.
So you do know why you were terminated, then? Which is it? Do you know or not know? If that's the case, try, "Well, I like to think of myself as a personable guy. I tend to get along with people. So I have to tell you I'm shocked to have to tell you that I left due to a personality conflict with my manager. I've gotten along fine with 9 other managers, but for whatever reason, things just did not work out with him. It was a difficult, but good learning experience for me in how to function constructively in case I am ever in that situation in the future." Anyhow, then you will look like less of an idiot. Assuming you don't bungle the rest of the interview.
"Uh-oh, he's having a kid, better get rid of him now. He'll be asking for raises and more time off." Think it can't happen?
For all I know, it did happen. Who cares?
Those father-types are all just slackers.
But what about those "post on slashdot while at work" types?
I'm glad you make enough to stash away not only nine months of full pay
Nine months of living expenses. Big difference. And this should be totally separate from your "nest egg." Typically I associate "nest egg" with retirement savings. Rainy day funds and retirement savings are two separate things.
Ignoring blacks, then, let's talk about gays or single mothers.
If you are a gay single mother and are concerned about being dismissed as a result, I suggest you move to a state that protects you from discrimination based on sexual preference and/or familial status. It's a little silly though, if you think about it.
For instance, I own some rental properties. Now in my state, I could ask "Are you gay?" on my rental application and lawfully deny anyone who answers "yes" (or "no", I suppose). Heck, I could put a sign on the doors of my buildings saying, "No gays allowed" and assuming the sign conformed to all local sign ordnances, I'd be well within the law. But the fact of the matter is I don't do that. It'd be bad busines practice, and morally wrong. What do I care if I have gay residents? What's important to me is that my residents pay on time and don't damage my property. That's all I ask. Likewise, if you are a system administrator, you need to keep the systems running. That is what you are being paid for. Most companies don't turn over staff unnecessarily. So you got screwed once. Big deal.
you're a fool and you need to realize that. Your destiny is not in your hands as long as you're employed by another. Period.
So start your own company, then, so you can be replaced by some other vendor that charges $0.50 less. You want to see cutthroat? Go into business for yourself. Oh, man, would you get slaughtered. Wow.
By the way, why are you calling me a fool? I'm the one who went eight months without a job and didn't lose a minute of sleep; whereas, you got canned 5 years ago and are still whining about it.
Actually, I have not. I suppose I could have been more clear.
When I said that the drunk driver was guilty of a tort, I probably should have explicitly said the other half of the equation, which is that your former employer is not guilty of any tort. When you get behind the wheel of a car, you owe the rest of the world a duty of care to operate that motor vehicle in a safe manner. The law states that operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol violates that duty of care.
On the other hand, your employer does not owe you a job. He does not owe you or your job any duty of care. The fact that you can go after a drunk driver to remedy the damages that he has caused you is totally irrelevant to being terminated from a job. You can't go after your former employer for damages any more than your old auto insurance company can go after you for switching to GEICO.
I'm not sure how I can explain it any more clearly. Your analogy was bad and irrelevant. Such is life.
Yes. In fact, I (ab)used it when my daughter was born to stay home and just be a daddy for a while. When it was running low, I went back to work and now it's replenished again.
How easy do you think it is to find a job when you have to explain to your next potential employer why you were fired, and the best answer you can come up with is "I wish I could tell you. I wasn't given a reason."?
How about, "You know, come to think of it, they never came right out and gave a reason--I just assumed it was a layoff. Anyhow, it wasn't for cause, if that's what your asking."
How are families supposed to take care of their kids medical needs when that happens and they lose their insurance?
COBRA.
How 'bout those folks who have to go through this in the states where it's ok to fire blacks?
I'm not familiar with the law outside of the US. At any rate, US Federal law prohibits this. So if you are black and concerned that you will be wrongfully terminated as a result, you should stay in the US.
Also, I'm not sure I understand the rest of your rant. The sword cuts both ways, big guy. You can leave your job at any time, and they can fire you at any time. You want job security? Go be a tenured professor or a federal government "worker".
What is this "malicious" firing you are talking about? This is not something that I am familiar with. I've heard of "layoffs" (company can't afford or doesn't want to afford to pay you anymore) and "termination for cause" (you are incompetant at your job)... but neither one I would describe as malicious.
The drunk driver in your example would be guilty of the tort of negligence. Here, the offending party (drunk driver) owes you a duty of care and has breached it by operating a motor vehicle in an unsafe manner, endangering himself and those around him. Here the offending party would owe you compensation, since his negligence has clearly damaged you.
On a side note, you were fired for wearing white after labor day? And you are upset that you no longer work for that company? At any rate, if your company didn't even notice that you were gone, you were obviously not providing any value and deserved to be fired. That's not malicious. It's just business.
No man is an island. If you are injured by a drunk driver, you have the following at your disposal:
You certainly have a claim against the drunk driver's assets including his auto insurance policy
Your own uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage, if the drunk driver is under or uninsured
Your long-term disability insurance policy. You do have disability, don't you? If not, again, you need to speak with a decent financial planner, pronto.
Social Security Disability. It's there. It won't be your current standard of living, but it's there if you're totally disabled.
Again, if you are terminated from your job, you would use your rainy-day fund. That's what it's there for.
Your employer is not your financial planner, guardian angel, or your mommy. If losing a particular job would leave you destitute, then you have failed to protect yourself.
It is not your employer's fault that you have no financial plan that accounts for a job loss. Jobs are lost. Deal with it. Plan for it. Stop whining about it.
If the defense team can show that the defendant's computer was compromised, and the machine was under 1069's and possibly others' control, that raises serious doubts about who actually put the illicit images there.
If the FBI were already investigating this guy and then 1069 r00ts his machine, 1069 probably just destroyed the FBI's case. Not good.
One of the tactics for getting out of the way of the animal people is to use obscure animals that people are not very familiar with, for example ferrets, because they just don't invoke the same emotional response
OMFG, kill the ferrets! Please! KILL THEM ALL! KILL KILL KILL! Those awful, smelly, disgusting rodents. KILL THEM!!! KILL THEM HARDER!!!!111oneone
Bot: For billing, please say 'billing'. For service, please say, "ser..."
Kid: DADA!
Me: Indoor voices, sweetie.
Bot: I'm sorry, but that is not a valid response. For billing, please...
Kid: DADA! DaDaDaDaDADADADADA!...
Bot: I'm still not understanding you. Please try your call again later.
I do freelance work as well, and every client that I've ever had wanted to see my resume.
A request for a resume resume, doesn't necessarily mean that the position is W-2. Just so you know for the next time you feel the need to alienate a potential client.
Even if the position was W-2, who do you think that manager will call with an open contract need? I'll give you a hint: it ain't you.
The "magic" bump spot is the back of the key. The back of the key is typically accessible on an in-service lock.
But don't let the fact that you haven't a clue what you're talking about deter you in any way from claiming that "the security impact of the girl's talent is zero." The fact is the girl has no special talent or training, and this technique works on an obscene percentage of the world's tumbler locks.
Slashdot Mirror
Something doesn't sound right here.
At my company, for instance, I can have payroll withhold whatever I tell them to withhold. So for my own paychecks, I have them withhold nothing all year and then do all the withholding in December when I know exactly what needs to be withheld based on the year's income. That way, I get the use of my money all year, rather than giving the US Treasury an interest-free loan. I don't know if your employer will be as flexible, but it works for me.
I'm sorry that you are having difficulty finding work. When I am looking for work, I typically just call everyone I know and tell them I need a job. Invariably, somebody either needs me or knows someone who needs me, or knows someone who knows someone... I think the technical term for it is "networking," but I just call it "putting food on the table."
Good luck!
In Economics, collusion refers to the cooperation of two firms that would otherwise be expected to compete with each other. An example of collusion might be if a particular community only had two options for broadband: DSL from Verizon and Cable Modem from Comcast. If Comcast and Verizon decided to cooperate and set the price of both DSL and Cable Modem at $65 per month inststead of competing with each other, that would be collusion.
- The IRS does not set the tax rates. Congress does. So you can complain to them if you feel you are paying too much in taxes.
- The money that was withheld was lost, but only temporarily. You certainly got that money back when you filed your income tax return for that year. If you wanted the money sooner, there are some tricks you can pull. But the fact still remains, your tax bill was not increased as a direct result of the payment being received in a lump sum.
At any rate, I wish you the best of luck.There is, however, a difference in withholding on a lump-sum payment. The payroll computer sees you're getting $20,000 in a paycheck and assumes that you make $400,000 per year and withholds at a higher tax bracket. That is why it withholds so much.
You should have noticed a much-larger-than-usual refund on your taxes for that year as a result of the over-withholding.
All the boss would have had to have said was, "I know that there are rumors, but no decision has been made yet. A decision is expected next week, though, so if you can hold off on signing for a week, it might be financially safer."
Incidentally, they also asked that I stop referring to the junk fees as "junk fees." I'm not sure why.
Look, maybe you should try working for a small business. They tend to make more rational decisions because they can't afford to absorb inefficiencies like firing people for wearing green socks.
And, by the way, my sword analogy was perfect. Just don't show up to the office wielding a katana. Despite being so good, it's still only an analogy.
Just to clarify, yes I think that employers should be able to staff as they see fit.
- There are two parties to each situation, and one of the parties (your old boss) has the right to do what he did. Employers can and should be allowed to staff as they see fit; whereas, motorists do not and should not have the right to get wasted and mow down a gaggle of nuns in a Ford Monstrosity.
- There exists a nontrivial difference between getting your life ruined by a drunk driver and "ruined" by a former manager. Surely you can agree that "never being able to walk again" is way different from "Doh, got fired from a job. Better go get another."
I'm going to assert that your analogy sucks. Oh wait, I guess I already asserted that. I shall now assert that your analogy still sucks.Drunk driver = negligent
Asshole manager = not negligent
Not that any of that has anything to do with employment termination.
Since you talk about overhearing managers talk about firing someone for having a kid, how about my buddy who, upon seeing his project was going to require the salaried employees (himself included) to work 80 hour weeks, negotiated to become hourly instead of salaried. He even threatened to quit, and wound up doing so when management thought they were calling his bluff. They wound up hiring him back on an hourly basis, and he made an obscene amount of money. He had no wife and kids. Why not? Me, I could never do that. I wouldn't want to go home one day and wonder why my daughter is suddenly 10 years older.
Anyhow, as I was saying, the sword cuts both ways, and the employee gets to wield it as does the employer.
For instance, I own some rental properties. Now in my state, I could ask "Are you gay?" on my rental application and lawfully deny anyone who answers "yes" (or "no", I suppose). Heck, I could put a sign on the doors of my buildings saying, "No gays allowed" and assuming the sign conformed to all local sign ordnances, I'd be well within the law. But the fact of the matter is I don't do that. It'd be bad busines practice, and morally wrong. What do I care if I have gay residents? What's important to me is that my residents pay on time and don't damage my property. That's all I ask. Likewise, if you are a system administrator, you need to keep the systems running. That is what you are being paid for. Most companies don't turn over staff unnecessarily. So you got screwed once. Big deal.
So start your own company, then, so you can be replaced by some other vendor that charges $0.50 less. You want to see cutthroat? Go into business for yourself. Oh, man, would you get slaughtered. Wow.By the way, why are you calling me a fool? I'm the one who went eight months without a job and didn't lose a minute of sleep; whereas, you got canned 5 years ago and are still whining about it.
When I said that the drunk driver was guilty of a tort, I probably should have explicitly said the other half of the equation, which is that your former employer is not guilty of any tort. When you get behind the wheel of a car, you owe the rest of the world a duty of care to operate that motor vehicle in a safe manner. The law states that operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol violates that duty of care.
On the other hand, your employer does not owe you a job. He does not owe you or your job any duty of care. The fact that you can go after a drunk driver to remedy the damages that he has caused you is totally irrelevant to being terminated from a job. You can't go after your former employer for damages any more than your old auto insurance company can go after you for switching to GEICO.
I'm not sure how I can explain it any more clearly. Your analogy was bad and irrelevant. Such is life.
Also, I'm not sure I understand the rest of your rant. The sword cuts both ways, big guy. You can leave your job at any time, and they can fire you at any time. You want job security? Go be a tenured professor or a federal government "worker".
The drunk driver in your example would be guilty of the tort of negligence. Here, the offending party (drunk driver) owes you a duty of care and has breached it by operating a motor vehicle in an unsafe manner, endangering himself and those around him. Here the offending party would owe you compensation, since his negligence has clearly damaged you.
On a side note, you were fired for wearing white after labor day? And you are upset that you no longer work for that company? At any rate, if your company didn't even notice that you were gone, you were obviously not providing any value and deserved to be fired. That's not malicious. It's just business.
- You certainly have a claim against the drunk driver's assets including his auto insurance policy
- Your own uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage, if the drunk driver is under or uninsured
- Your long-term disability insurance policy. You do have disability, don't you? If not, again, you need to speak with a decent financial planner, pronto.
- Social Security Disability. It's there. It won't be your current standard of living, but it's there if you're totally disabled.
Again, if you are terminated from your job, you would use your rainy-day fund. That's what it's there for.It is not your employer's fault that you have no financial plan that accounts for a job loss. Jobs are lost. Deal with it. Plan for it. Stop whining about it.
If the FBI were already investigating this guy and then 1069 r00ts his machine, 1069 probably just destroyed the FBI's case. Not good.
But that's just my personal opinion.
A request for a resume resume, doesn't necessarily mean that the position is W-2. Just so you know for the next time you feel the need to alienate a potential client.
Even if the position was W-2, who do you think that manager will call with an open contract need? I'll give you a hint: it ain't you.
But don't let the fact that you haven't a clue what you're talking about deter you in any way from claiming that "the security impact of the girl's talent is zero." The fact is the girl has no special talent or training, and this technique works on an obscene percentage of the world's tumbler locks.
"Not a very realistic threat," indeed.
You may not realize it, but you owe your new boss a thank you note and a box of chocolates.