I can employ you and terminate your employment the very same day. Go ahead and try to sue me for termination of your employment. You have to be told why you were terminated before you can get a 'green light' at the case is even going to be heard. Otherwise, your attempt to sue will go nowhere.
As long as it is not based on discrimination or otherwise illegal reasoning there is practically nothing you can do. Reason is, with at-will employment, there is no requirement of a good reason and generally no requirement under labor law to state the reason a person is fired. Literally, a person can be blindsighted with a pink slip with no reason stated. All it has to say is "You're fired" with the name of the person it is to.
LITERALLY!
Of course, employers typically have a reason of some kind but disclosure of that reason is not required. Employers in Oregon doing at-will employment does not have to disclose to an employee why he or she is being terminated from employment. In short, an employer in Oregon does not have to tell you can reason unless ordered by a Judge to disclose reason. As an employer, I can metaphorically tell the DA and even the Attorney General to go f--- off. Without a court order to disclose it, they don't get squat.
Before a civil court trial can get a green light, a there is this stage after summoning where your allegations are sent and I reply with my answer.
In which case a Judge may motion to dismiss the case right on merit of arguments in respect to the laws as they are. In addition, a chunk of federal employment labor laws does not apply to employees until a nexus is met such as employment that crosses state boundary lines and rises to level of interstate employment. Otherwise, they are typically state laws matters. If a Judge does move the case to the next step, an employee has the basic options of motioning to discovery and employer has the option to motion to dismiss.
In which case, who has the prevailing argument wins that step of the war.
Which in any case, an employers has had time to formulate a reason for firing you that is legally compliant. Since the plaintiff (has the burden of proof by default unless something shifts the burden.
The burden of proof and the facts will usually set thing in order as they were in the first place provided every party is clear and honest. The facts will show.
The problem is it only takes a day for an employer to come up with a legally compliant reason and by the time the first proceeding of the case would occur, it is often weeks since termination so by that time, the road is a uphill battle for an employee especially if you have no recorded/written evidence to prove your argument.
Keep that in mind. If an employer was to sue an employee, they have a burden of proof and if you did wrong and did harm then the burden of proof is going to have a high liklihood of shifting to the employee especially if proof is and can be shown you received money for work you did not perform to earn. Proof can be documented and shown that can be held against you. Just verbally saying there was a verbal statement doesn't make it so.
An employee better have a legal leg to stand on.
Well, all parties has to if they are going to go that route.
yo Intern - I need the night Balkins, Curtkram, and Olaf went into a bar and came out like machines transcribed, the conversations range from the ontology of algorithms to the book of Gensis in Hebrew to 'what are the odds that pick-up line is going to work at 11pm, 12am, 1am, and 2am....'....google made an algorithm for this as well - written by Balkins no less.
Don't ask me, just do it - it's your job....
.what?
Think critically?
You can't even transcribe a conversation correctly without getting a public official angry, what makes you think you can be critical?
are we starving because they don't teach us what the word 'entitlement' means? or because we can't write decent haiku's? i blame the schools.
Mar 7, 15 3:56 pm ·
·
The phrase is "sense of entitlement" that the context of the discussion where young folks have a FALSE 'sense of entitlement' because they think they are 'owed' a right that doesn't exist.
While business owners have rights set forth in ownership rights of personal and real property because the money, assets and all is owned by the owner.
When an employee is paid to do something and does not do it, then the employee is basically a thief and committed a crime of theft. When an employee is not doing the job he/she is being paid for, the employee can effectively be stealing money from the employer and in a way they are. There is a number of up front costs that employers take covering a period or estimate period of work that is taken out even before some of those hours are performed. It isn't just the raw wage that an employer pays on the employee. What about the matching withholdings. What about the health insurance? What about these things that an employee is receiving the benefits of and that employee not performing his or her duties assigned? It is fundamentally a theft and that is what the civil court is fundamentally about. To restore in form of restitution to right an equitable harm or theft caused by a wrong doer.
In the end, it is about money. The foundation of most employment decisions by an employer about employees is ultimately about money.
Mar 7, 15 4:13 pm ·
·
Money is ultimately all of what we give a shit about other than those things we have deep emotional connections to such as our loved one.
they think they are 'owed' a right that doesn't exist.
if you agree to pay an employee, then that employee is ENTITLED to the payment you agreed to. you OWE them what you promised to pay them, unless of course the 'contract' is terminated by either party.
Money is ultimately all of what we give a shit about
this is really only true of people who are too dumb to understand that there are lots of things more important than money. like your life and livelihood, or the lives and livelihoods of the people in your community, including people who work for a living.
i am amazed at how some business owners can be so stupid as to think they're ENTITLED to their own interpretation of the law and the constitution without even reading either, and how they think everyone else OWES them their 'mind and body.'
did capitalizing words in non-grammatically correct manner help you understand what i'm saying?
at some point there is a difference between a 'good' person and a 'bad' person. where that line is draws will probably be different for everyone, but there should be some similarity in deciding what it is that's important when differentiating a 'good' person from a 'bad' person. i would say that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is a 'bad' person. if he had a bit more money, would that make him a 'good' person? you said what it is that you give a shit about is money, so if he got paid to kill a bunch of people, that would make him 'good?' if he was only acting on his brother's request because he believed in your feudal system where he had to do what he was told without questioning, would that make him 'good?' of course not. he's bad because he hurt other people. the belief you hold in a feudal system with such a sharp class distinction between those who work for a living and those with some sort of ownership hurts the people who you think you can control.
of course there is no reason to think you're trying to be a 'good' person, or that you want to be a 'good' person, any more than you're trying to be intelligent or educated. i suppose you're just a petty old man who's trying to take advantage of others because you're too dumb and lazy to take care of yourself. of course that doesn't make you any more competent, it just makes you more desperate than the rest of us. if you had a point other than just whining about people not respecting the authority you never had, you'd show me the law or the court opinion that supports your assertion that you learned law by studying rather than by simply making shit up. if someone asked me why i designed a toilet stall so large, i would show them the law that compels me to do so. that's minimum competence.
nobody is going to take you serious anyway until you show us you're able to write your opinion out in a haiku.
Yes but we are talking about CONDITIONALS... now. You have right to payment on the CONDITION you fulfill the work that is required. IF you fail to perform and you were paid. You must repay what you did not earn or you fulfill the promise of performance for the pay or you are stealing and committing theft.
The thing is, the money is not yours to keep if you don't fulfill your part of the agreement. You owe paying back what you did not earn to keep. That is how it works. In some countries, an employer can take your body parts for restitution. But the premise of re-compensating what you did not fulfill.
If you fulfill the task, then I owe you payment unless I paid for it in advance. It is not whether I pay you in advance or as it goes. However, it does factor in when consideration of what I already paid and what is owed by what party.
if i don't do the work, and you haven't paid me yet, what is it that i'm repaying? that makes no sense. even so, that still doesn't support your notion that you own people, or people's minds, or people's bodies.
Mar 7, 15 9:37 pm ·
·
Excuse me, assume you're the employee, if I paid you to $200 to mow the lawn and you didn't do it, you owe me $200.
That is when the payment is done in advance.
If however like most typical employment, the employment is say $20/hour. If you don't work then either you don't get paid because you didn't do anything. However, if somehow you got a paycheck because you cited 40 hours of work a week for two weeks. You however did nothing. you just showed up, clock in with your employee id through the computer and HR company processed those hours.... you got paid for 80 hours of work but you didn't do anything. That's $1600 of raw wages plus other background costs roughly $2500 or is invested in that time but you did nothing. You performed nothing. You sat their on your butt in a chair. We got a problem. I, the employer just spent $2500 on someone who was a deadbeat employee that did nothing. I would probably fire your butt right then and there so another $2500 doesn't go out on someone who doesn't do anything. You were assigned tasks to perform but nothing materialized... so WTF? The employee still has to pay back what you are owed OR I have to dock future paychecks paid until the amount owed is cleared of course in accordance with proper accounting procedures. Usually, docking pay isn't used unless you broke something but I have a right to collect under lawful means. Docking pay may not always be the legal option so another method under law would be used but I have right to be compensated.
When the employee is paid or being paid for work, but doesn't do the job then the employee is causing harm to the employer. If paid for, then it is without a doubt a form of theft.
Taking money or keeping money that doesn't belong to you is theft.
Which is basically a form of embezzlement and would rise to that if employee refuses to pay back or otherwise has intentionally did so your lying about hours work or deliberately causing it to be so. We are talking about time theft which is in essence a technical form of embezzlement/fraud.
Now, there are civil and criminal court options but often before the DA as only a DA can file for a criminal case against someone. A person can report a crime to the DA or police department but then it is up to the DA to decide whether the case meets nexus for their office's time. While a civil case on the other hand is a different manner as that is a suit between parties. Usually small figures are not enough for a DA to go about it. In a civil case, you got either small claims or civil court (non-small claims civil court type stuff). In which case, different procedures and whether a lawyer would be involved or not. Small claims i general does not involve lawyers and often lawyers are not allowed in those cases other that outside preparation prior to hearing of your case.
It boils down to cost and whether to pursue. Just because a lawsuit is not taken does not mean it is not technically committing a violation of law.
We spoke enough on this and you know what I am saying is true and pretty much factual. Just because pursuing a legal case is not cost effective for an employer does not change the fact a wrong is a wrong. A legal violation is a legal violation. A crime is a crime.
"if i don't do the work, and you haven't paid me yet, what is it that i'm repaying?"
worker's comp? employee health insurance? etc. Some of those that we pre-pay in advance to some degree or otherwise have to pay even after you are terminated from employment and before or even after another person is hired to fulfill your position. Taxes with a city that is based on number of employees the employer has.
So yeah, they factor in.
Mar 8, 15 12:16 am ·
·
In addition, there is other financial harm that can be caused by an employee failing to perform duties. Since it reciprocates to impacts on timing of account receivables from clients. Do the math. There is chains of ramifications that may occur.
an employer doesn't hire you for your opinion unless they ask for it or that is your assignment
Drones don't make very good employees in this industry. I just wanted to put that out there.
...on another note.
It's not entitlement to think tasks should be within logical boundaries of a job. Though I don't know where i would locate the boundary between silly and unacceptable.
I can do a transcription if my boss wants me to. I'm going to be really upfront about not having experience with this. I know it's going to take longer, come out worse, and cost more per hour to have me do it than if they got a professional transcriber. This is important because they can't expect professional level service in this circumstance, and it's not something that I should have been responsible to learn in order to take this job. None of which is to say I shouldn't do it.
Now, if my boss tells me to go outside and dig a hole for a tree they are putting in the back of the building I'm going to have to politely decline. Is there a legal position for me to say this is not my job, I don't know, but I do know it is outright insane. I work a desk job, I have shoulder issues, I wear nice dress clothes because the office has a dress code, that is not an acceptable task to demand of an employee in this position.
So where is the line drawn?
(this is a serious question, I am not trying to support or attack any positions in the rest of this thread)
i'm guessing that the average transcriber isn't the brightest person - perhaps the boss man wanted someone who had at least heard technical words used before and understood what the people were saying?
you know what I am saying is true and pretty much factual
no. no it's not. there is an important difference between making up the law to suit your narcissistic fantasy of owning people and actually understanding the law.
at the start you said that you own people. now your saying there are laws to protect an employer from people who commit fraud. it's true that fraud is actually a crime, but that has nothing to do with your previous statements that an employer owns their employee, body and mind. that also has nothing to do with whether an employee is free to make decisions regarding their own life and livelihood. i believe your strategy is to obfuscate your point by rambling on about unrelated topics, such as fruad, then assuming since you have such a long and incoherent wall of text it will somehow lump your original statement into the unrelated topic you drifted off on.
nate, the easy way to explain it is pretty much just that you can be fired for no reason, and you can quit for no reason. if not planting a tree creates some sort of hostility between you and your boss it will probably harm the working relationship you have there. if your boss is a narcissistic idiot that thinks your subverting his dream of owning slaves by asking to not ruin your shoes, then it's likely that boss is going to hold a grudge against you. where you choose to draw that line is your choice. then again, if your boss is that stupid, it's probably best to end that relationship anyway.
R Balkins suggestion that there is some law that will cause you to get sued in civil court or arrested and sent to jail for wasting your employer's precious time is not true.
don't just pick and choose the parts that make you feel good about yourself. try to read and understand the entire thing.
Mar 8, 15 12:58 pm ·
·
curtkram,
You're fired.
Ok... you never were hired. Anyway, you miss the fundamental ownership is in the equity tied into an employee. An employee can quit but it doesn't always relieve them of their contractual obligations owed. If you owe, you owe. If you quit, you are not free from lawsuit resulting from harm you cause. Of course, employer has to show a harm was made. Since, when you sue someone, the default of burden of proof is in the plaintiff.
Let's say, I paid you $200 to mow the lawn up front. I provide you the equipment, state the time and that you are contract employee or even any employee but the amount for the time is paid up front with ample coverage for a task that should only take 2-3 hours at most as it normally takes 1-1/2 to 2 hrs at most. $200 is not bad for 3 hours work on this. You are scheduled to do the work the upcoming Saturday. Saturday came, you did not show up. I stopped by to supervise and observe but you fail to do the job. I bought your body and mind for those 2-3 hours to do this service.
When a person does a service for another person (either as an employee of some kind or an independent contractor) you are leasing or renting your body and mind for a period of time in accordance with the agreement. That is what servitude is. Lawful employment is VOLUNTARY SERVITUDE. Employers are basically renting you. As long as they are paying you and especially if they pay you in advance, they own that rent. It is the marketing and rental of yourself in service to others is what employment is. It is like you renting your home. The renter owns that rental of that home they paid for.
This is debt owed. Sure when you quit, and the employment is terminated, you are free to go.
You miss the meaning...of body and mind. All employment is servitude. It is the same thing. Servitude is the marketing of body & mind. What is outlawed is permanent sales and transfer of ownership. What is not illegal is basically the rental which is essentially a temporary possession and paid for rent is owned. A renter owns the paid for rental of something or some place or even some person.
Labor for compensation is rental of your body and mind for a period of time for a period of time. When it is paid for, the renter owns that rental of your body and mind so they essentially own that body and mind for that paid for and agreed period for the agreed service under the agreed terms.
When you are on the clock, you are imposing a cost on the employer. The thing is, you owe the employer the duty to perform your assigned tasks.
It's about equity (money). When someone pays you in advance for work labor to be performed, it's a deposit like a rental deposit. There is forms of this upfront payment employers are doing which otherwise would be an employee's responsibility like your health insurance. In law which is law of equity which it all is, it is for the most part, you are a financial number value. In equity law, you are basically a bank account value. You are $_________. You can clear your financial owe as an employee only by either performing the agreed work or you pay back the unearned amount or the employer recovers the loss in some form.
It comes down to the rental of your mind and body which is what labor for compensation which is another term for servitude or employment.
When a renter pays rent, they own the rental of that apartment for the period of time as long as they pay and comply with the rental agreement.
There is contractual term based ownership and permanent ownership. Rent is an ownership of the time and use of that which is rented. Employment is a contractual rental of your body and mind for a period of time. The employer is owns rental of your body and mind for a period of time as the agreement is set forth.
Only difference between involuntary servitude and voluntary servitude (aka employment) is the voluntary/involuntary part by definition.
Voluntary servitude does not mean there is no contractual obligation to fulfill.
you're comparing property rights to people. it doesn't work that way. read the link i posted, and if you don't understand it re-read it. then come back and post 733 words on your desire for modern serfdom.
treating people like property makes you a bad person. quit doing that.
Now, if my boss tells me to go outside and dig a hole for a tree they are putting in the back of the building I'm going to have to politely decline. Is there a legal position for me to say this is not my job, I don't know, but I do know it is outright insane. I work a desk job, I have shoulder issues, I wear nice dress clothes because the office has a dress code, that is not an acceptable task to demand of an employee in this position.
So where is the line drawn?
Use your gut to decide that line.
The 'good person' versus 'bad person' comes in as arbitrary and totally biased upon individual perception. Maybe he's using planting tree's as a team building and care for the environment statement: In their mind, they are a good person.... you are free to think otherwise, but just know who signs the check and hires and fires in the firm. By refusing to participate, which you are free to do, he may adopt a perception that you don't fit in well with the office culture; he can adopt you aren't a 'good person' perception.
Sidenote: Also keep in mind some of this reflects the individual taste of that boss and the sort of thing they might like doing; If you are good at reading folks, you'll be able to tell whether or not they think they are giving you a gift or assigning you a turd. If it was a gift; Refusal is rejecting them and their values which can be shaky ground.
My wife runs across this sort of stuff all the time in her corporate world with all the various teambuilding, volunteering, and cross-training stuff. Seriously, she's had to play volleyball, race rc cars around the parking lot, and do field day events under the guise of teambuilding. (to me, that sounds fun, but she's a worker bee type so she adopts the perception that it is a waste of company resources and capital to purchase the 'toys', lunches, etc.).. You can say 'no'. But unless you are a top producer who can get away with turning it away because you are a profitable asset they'd be stupid for losing, you'll be cut down and eventually thrown away under that same guise of "not a team player".
Curt, you do know that Rick (ie "building designer") has no employees of his own, right? Also, he has no job in architecture, dropped out of school, and lives in the basement of mommy's house.
brud, that doesn't prevent him from writing a haiku. i bet many of the best haiku writers in history didn't even go to haiku school. also, you could say some things are assumptions and some are not. i don't mind if he wants to pretend to be someone he isn't on the internet, but i think there is a point where we shouldn't be misleading other people to such an extent, and it would be better if we encouraged and empowered those young people who didn't take the sage advice to get out of the profession, rather than telling them they're slaves, or dismissing them as 'entitled millennials.'
Mar 9, 15 1:24 pm ·
·
Brud-G,
True, I do not have employees at this time. I do however have EIN. I also do not have long term employees. I may have someone do a small task that might be for an hour or so and that's contracted employment in its own right. The reason is cash revenue flow does not make it financially prudent to hire employees for long term duration.
As for your comment on dropping out of school is comical. I might not be taking courses this year out of financial reasons but I have been taking college courses for 13 years with more earned course credits behind my name than any B.Arch degree. I also have a business to run and I can not just shut business down for much longer with economy progressively getting better. There is also the software business as well.
As for your comment about basement... lol. Registered place of business and commercially zoned for residential-commercial use with home office/professional service establishment permitted outright. What's your point. I'm not inclined in accumulating $100K loans without an equal to or greater annual income. Students should not have to spend more than 10% of their income on student loans and generally, your annual income to sum of annual student loan payments should be 10:1 or higher. If you spend more than 10% of your annual income on the loans then you progressively impoverishing yourself and it is not financially responsible at some point over the course of your loan payments.
I'm not an employee to an architect. I may do an occassional contract work with an architect but I have my own building design business and software development business. I have yet to decide whether or not pursuing architectural licensure is even worth it. However, that is for me to decide and not anyone else's business as that is personal.
Mar 9, 15 2:13 pm ·
·
I'll add to what mightyaa said:
Dress code is a policy that the boss may suspend at his or her will under a given context of work to be assigned. There is something called a jumpsuit and all. In addition, if the boss is going to assign such a task to an employee, they are going to either provide you a jump suit to get into or assign the task in advance enough like on a weekend or something and would require you to dress appropriately for such task.
ok... if they weren't a jerk, they would use some other color.
Never in a million years would I write a word-for-word transcript of a meeting. Meeting notes that capture the essence are good enough. I'd have my employer's head if they insisted otherwise.
is this normal stuff to happen in architecture firms.
I can employ you and terminate your employment the very same day. Go ahead and try to sue me for termination of your employment. You have to be told why you were terminated before you can get a 'green light' at the case is even going to be heard. Otherwise, your attempt to sue will go nowhere.
As long as it is not based on discrimination or otherwise illegal reasoning there is practically nothing you can do. Reason is, with at-will employment, there is no requirement of a good reason and generally no requirement under labor law to state the reason a person is fired. Literally, a person can be blindsighted with a pink slip with no reason stated. All it has to say is "You're fired" with the name of the person it is to.
LITERALLY!
Of course, employers typically have a reason of some kind but disclosure of that reason is not required. Employers in Oregon doing at-will employment does not have to disclose to an employee why he or she is being terminated from employment. In short, an employer in Oregon does not have to tell you can reason unless ordered by a Judge to disclose reason. As an employer, I can metaphorically tell the DA and even the Attorney General to go f--- off. Without a court order to disclose it, they don't get squat.
Before a civil court trial can get a green light, a there is this stage after summoning where your allegations are sent and I reply with my answer.
In which case a Judge may motion to dismiss the case right on merit of arguments in respect to the laws as they are. In addition, a chunk of federal employment labor laws does not apply to employees until a nexus is met such as employment that crosses state boundary lines and rises to level of interstate employment. Otherwise, they are typically state laws matters. If a Judge does move the case to the next step, an employee has the basic options of motioning to discovery and employer has the option to motion to dismiss.
In which case, who has the prevailing argument wins that step of the war.
Which in any case, an employers has had time to formulate a reason for firing you that is legally compliant. Since the plaintiff (has the burden of proof by default unless something shifts the burden.
The burden of proof and the facts will usually set thing in order as they were in the first place provided every party is clear and honest. The facts will show.
The problem is it only takes a day for an employer to come up with a legally compliant reason and by the time the first proceeding of the case would occur, it is often weeks since termination so by that time, the road is a uphill battle for an employee especially if you have no recorded/written evidence to prove your argument.
Keep that in mind. If an employer was to sue an employee, they have a burden of proof and if you did wrong and did harm then the burden of proof is going to have a high liklihood of shifting to the employee especially if proof is and can be shown you received money for work you did not perform to earn. Proof can be documented and shown that can be held against you. Just verbally saying there was a verbal statement doesn't make it so.
An employee better have a legal leg to stand on.
Well, all parties has to if they are going to go that route.
maybe look at the
unemployment insurance
in your area
it is not the same
i can do it in haiku
b. o. o. m.
<drop mic>
^--i count drop mic as a syllable.
are you machine Richard?
now say this with me in a drunkin' drivle -
dropmic (mumble)
drpmc (mmmmuble)
drpmk (one syllable)
kfmdm?
No more than you are, Olaf,
yo Intern - I need the night Balkins, Curtkram, and Olaf went into a bar and came out like machines transcribed, the conversations range from the ontology of algorithms to the book of Gensis in Hebrew to 'what are the odds that pick-up line is going to work at 11pm, 12am, 1am, and 2am....'....google made an algorithm for this as well - written by Balkins no less.
Don't ask me, just do it - it's your job....
.what?
Think critically?
You can't even transcribe a conversation correctly without getting a public official angry, what makes you think you can be critical?
There is so much entitlement in this thread, no wonder most of us are starving.
are we starving because they don't teach us what the word 'entitlement' means? or because we can't write decent haiku's? i blame the schools.
The phrase is "sense of entitlement" that the context of the discussion where young folks have a FALSE 'sense of entitlement' because they think they are 'owed' a right that doesn't exist.
While business owners have rights set forth in ownership rights of personal and real property because the money, assets and all is owned by the owner.
When an employee is paid to do something and does not do it, then the employee is basically a thief and committed a crime of theft. When an employee is not doing the job he/she is being paid for, the employee can effectively be stealing money from the employer and in a way they are. There is a number of up front costs that employers take covering a period or estimate period of work that is taken out even before some of those hours are performed. It isn't just the raw wage that an employer pays on the employee. What about the matching withholdings. What about the health insurance? What about these things that an employee is receiving the benefits of and that employee not performing his or her duties assigned? It is fundamentally a theft and that is what the civil court is fundamentally about. To restore in form of restitution to right an equitable harm or theft caused by a wrong doer.
In the end, it is about money. The foundation of most employment decisions by an employer about employees is ultimately about money.
Money is ultimately all of what we give a shit about other than those things we have deep emotional connections to such as our loved one.
they think they are 'owed' a right that doesn't exist.
if you agree to pay an employee, then that employee is ENTITLED to the payment you agreed to. you OWE them what you promised to pay them, unless of course the 'contract' is terminated by either party.
Money is ultimately all of what we give a shit about
this is really only true of people who are too dumb to understand that there are lots of things more important than money. like your life and livelihood, or the lives and livelihoods of the people in your community, including people who work for a living.
i am amazed at how some business owners can be so stupid as to think they're ENTITLED to their own interpretation of the law and the constitution without even reading either, and how they think everyone else OWES them their 'mind and body.'
did capitalizing words in non-grammatically correct manner help you understand what i'm saying?
at some point there is a difference between a 'good' person and a 'bad' person. where that line is draws will probably be different for everyone, but there should be some similarity in deciding what it is that's important when differentiating a 'good' person from a 'bad' person. i would say that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is a 'bad' person. if he had a bit more money, would that make him a 'good' person? you said what it is that you give a shit about is money, so if he got paid to kill a bunch of people, that would make him 'good?' if he was only acting on his brother's request because he believed in your feudal system where he had to do what he was told without questioning, would that make him 'good?' of course not. he's bad because he hurt other people. the belief you hold in a feudal system with such a sharp class distinction between those who work for a living and those with some sort of ownership hurts the people who you think you can control.
of course there is no reason to think you're trying to be a 'good' person, or that you want to be a 'good' person, any more than you're trying to be intelligent or educated. i suppose you're just a petty old man who's trying to take advantage of others because you're too dumb and lazy to take care of yourself. of course that doesn't make you any more competent, it just makes you more desperate than the rest of us. if you had a point other than just whining about people not respecting the authority you never had, you'd show me the law or the court opinion that supports your assertion that you learned law by studying rather than by simply making shit up. if someone asked me why i designed a toilet stall so large, i would show them the law that compels me to do so. that's minimum competence.
nobody is going to take you serious anyway until you show us you're able to write your opinion out in a haiku.
Money is ultimately all of what you give a shit about, not me.
I like haikus
curtkram,
Yes but we are talking about CONDITIONALS... now. You have right to payment on the CONDITION you fulfill the work that is required. IF you fail to perform and you were paid. You must repay what you did not earn or you fulfill the promise of performance for the pay or you are stealing and committing theft.
The thing is, the money is not yours to keep if you don't fulfill your part of the agreement. You owe paying back what you did not earn to keep. That is how it works. In some countries, an employer can take your body parts for restitution. But the premise of re-compensating what you did not fulfill.
If you fulfill the task, then I owe you payment unless I paid for it in advance. It is not whether I pay you in advance or as it goes. However, it does factor in when consideration of what I already paid and what is owed by what party.
i'm not sure you understand how haikus work.
if i don't do the work, and you haven't paid me yet, what is it that i'm repaying? that makes no sense. even so, that still doesn't support your notion that you own people, or people's minds, or people's bodies.
Excuse me, assume you're the employee, if I paid you to $200 to mow the lawn and you didn't do it, you owe me $200.
That is when the payment is done in advance.
If however like most typical employment, the employment is say $20/hour. If you don't work then either you don't get paid because you didn't do anything. However, if somehow you got a paycheck because you cited 40 hours of work a week for two weeks. You however did nothing. you just showed up, clock in with your employee id through the computer and HR company processed those hours.... you got paid for 80 hours of work but you didn't do anything. That's $1600 of raw wages plus other background costs roughly $2500 or is invested in that time but you did nothing. You performed nothing. You sat their on your butt in a chair. We got a problem. I, the employer just spent $2500 on someone who was a deadbeat employee that did nothing. I would probably fire your butt right then and there so another $2500 doesn't go out on someone who doesn't do anything. You were assigned tasks to perform but nothing materialized... so WTF? The employee still has to pay back what you are owed OR I have to dock future paychecks paid until the amount owed is cleared of course in accordance with proper accounting procedures. Usually, docking pay isn't used unless you broke something but I have a right to collect under lawful means. Docking pay may not always be the legal option so another method under law would be used but I have right to be compensated.
When the employee is paid or being paid for work, but doesn't do the job then the employee is causing harm to the employer. If paid for, then it is without a doubt a form of theft.
Taking money or keeping money that doesn't belong to you is theft.
Which is basically a form of embezzlement and would rise to that if employee refuses to pay back or otherwise has intentionally did so your lying about hours work or deliberately causing it to be so. We are talking about time theft which is in essence a technical form of embezzlement/fraud.
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=2119
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=614
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/embezzlement
http://www.humanresourceblog.com/2009/07/30/timecard-fraud/
http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/is-lying-about-hours-worked-considered-fraud-or-th-1413170.html
or time theft.
Now, there are civil and criminal court options but often before the DA as only a DA can file for a criminal case against someone. A person can report a crime to the DA or police department but then it is up to the DA to decide whether the case meets nexus for their office's time. While a civil case on the other hand is a different manner as that is a suit between parties. Usually small figures are not enough for a DA to go about it. In a civil case, you got either small claims or civil court (non-small claims civil court type stuff). In which case, different procedures and whether a lawyer would be involved or not. Small claims i general does not involve lawyers and often lawyers are not allowed in those cases other that outside preparation prior to hearing of your case.
It boils down to cost and whether to pursue. Just because a lawsuit is not taken does not mean it is not technically committing a violation of law.
We spoke enough on this and you know what I am saying is true and pretty much factual. Just because pursuing a legal case is not cost effective for an employer does not change the fact a wrong is a wrong. A legal violation is a legal violation. A crime is a crime.
"if i don't do the work, and you haven't paid me yet, what is it that i'm repaying?"
http://www.accountingcoach.com/payroll-accounting/explanation/4
worker's comp? employee health insurance? etc. Some of those that we pre-pay in advance to some degree or otherwise have to pay even after you are terminated from employment and before or even after another person is hired to fulfill your position. Taxes with a city that is based on number of employees the employer has.
So yeah, they factor in.
In addition, there is other financial harm that can be caused by an employee failing to perform duties. Since it reciprocates to impacts on timing of account receivables from clients. Do the math. There is chains of ramifications that may occur.
an employer doesn't hire you for your opinion unless they ask for it or that is your assignment
Drones don't make very good employees in this industry. I just wanted to put that out there.
...on another note.
It's not entitlement to think tasks should be within logical boundaries of a job. Though I don't know where i would locate the boundary between silly and unacceptable.
I can do a transcription if my boss wants me to. I'm going to be really upfront about not having experience with this. I know it's going to take longer, come out worse, and cost more per hour to have me do it than if they got a professional transcriber. This is important because they can't expect professional level service in this circumstance, and it's not something that I should have been responsible to learn in order to take this job. None of which is to say I shouldn't do it.
Now, if my boss tells me to go outside and dig a hole for a tree they are putting in the back of the building I'm going to have to politely decline. Is there a legal position for me to say this is not my job, I don't know, but I do know it is outright insane. I work a desk job, I have shoulder issues, I wear nice dress clothes because the office has a dress code, that is not an acceptable task to demand of an employee in this position.
So where is the line drawn?
(this is a serious question, I am not trying to support or attack any positions in the rest of this thread)
i'm guessing that the average transcriber isn't the brightest person - perhaps the boss man wanted someone who had at least heard technical words used before and understood what the people were saying?
you know what I am saying is true and pretty much factual
no. no it's not. there is an important difference between making up the law to suit your narcissistic fantasy of owning people and actually understanding the law.
at the start you said that you own people. now your saying there are laws to protect an employer from people who commit fraud. it's true that fraud is actually a crime, but that has nothing to do with your previous statements that an employer owns their employee, body and mind. that also has nothing to do with whether an employee is free to make decisions regarding their own life and livelihood. i believe your strategy is to obfuscate your point by rambling on about unrelated topics, such as fruad, then assuming since you have such a long and incoherent wall of text it will somehow lump your original statement into the unrelated topic you drifted off on.
nate, the easy way to explain it is pretty much just that you can be fired for no reason, and you can quit for no reason. if not planting a tree creates some sort of hostility between you and your boss it will probably harm the working relationship you have there. if your boss is a narcissistic idiot that thinks your subverting his dream of owning slaves by asking to not ruin your shoes, then it's likely that boss is going to hold a grudge against you. where you choose to draw that line is your choice. then again, if your boss is that stupid, it's probably best to end that relationship anyway.
R Balkins suggestion that there is some law that will cause you to get sued in civil court or arrested and sent to jail for wasting your employer's precious time is not true.
here you go R, this is not a bad primer on court cases where employers sue employees
http://lawschool.unm.edu/nmlr/volumes/43/2/6-Holt.pdf
don't just pick and choose the parts that make you feel good about yourself. try to read and understand the entire thing.
curtkram,
You're fired.
Ok... you never were hired. Anyway, you miss the fundamental ownership is in the equity tied into an employee. An employee can quit but it doesn't always relieve them of their contractual obligations owed. If you owe, you owe. If you quit, you are not free from lawsuit resulting from harm you cause. Of course, employer has to show a harm was made. Since, when you sue someone, the default of burden of proof is in the plaintiff.
Let's say, I paid you $200 to mow the lawn up front. I provide you the equipment, state the time and that you are contract employee or even any employee but the amount for the time is paid up front with ample coverage for a task that should only take 2-3 hours at most as it normally takes 1-1/2 to 2 hrs at most. $200 is not bad for 3 hours work on this. You are scheduled to do the work the upcoming Saturday. Saturday came, you did not show up. I stopped by to supervise and observe but you fail to do the job. I bought your body and mind for those 2-3 hours to do this service.
When a person does a service for another person (either as an employee of some kind or an independent contractor) you are leasing or renting your body and mind for a period of time in accordance with the agreement. That is what servitude is. Lawful employment is VOLUNTARY SERVITUDE. Employers are basically renting you. As long as they are paying you and especially if they pay you in advance, they own that rent. It is the marketing and rental of yourself in service to others is what employment is. It is like you renting your home. The renter owns that rental of that home they paid for.
This is debt owed. Sure when you quit, and the employment is terminated, you are free to go.
You miss the meaning...of body and mind. All employment is servitude. It is the same thing. Servitude is the marketing of body & mind. What is outlawed is permanent sales and transfer of ownership. What is not illegal is basically the rental which is essentially a temporary possession and paid for rent is owned. A renter owns the paid for rental of something or some place or even some person.
Labor for compensation is rental of your body and mind for a period of time for a period of time. When it is paid for, the renter owns that rental of your body and mind so they essentially own that body and mind for that paid for and agreed period for the agreed service under the agreed terms.
When you are on the clock, you are imposing a cost on the employer. The thing is, you owe the employer the duty to perform your assigned tasks.
It's about equity (money). When someone pays you in advance for work labor to be performed, it's a deposit like a rental deposit. There is forms of this upfront payment employers are doing which otherwise would be an employee's responsibility like your health insurance. In law which is law of equity which it all is, it is for the most part, you are a financial number value. In equity law, you are basically a bank account value. You are $_________. You can clear your financial owe as an employee only by either performing the agreed work or you pay back the unearned amount or the employer recovers the loss in some form.
It comes down to the rental of your mind and body which is what labor for compensation which is another term for servitude or employment.
When a renter pays rent, they own the rental of that apartment for the period of time as long as they pay and comply with the rental agreement.
There is contractual term based ownership and permanent ownership. Rent is an ownership of the time and use of that which is rented. Employment is a contractual rental of your body and mind for a period of time. The employer is owns rental of your body and mind for a period of time as the agreement is set forth.
Only difference between involuntary servitude and voluntary servitude (aka employment) is the voluntary/involuntary part by definition.
Voluntary servitude does not mean there is no contractual obligation to fulfill.
you're comparing property rights to people. it doesn't work that way. read the link i posted, and if you don't understand it re-read it. then come back and post 733 words on your desire for modern serfdom.
treating people like property makes you a bad person. quit doing that.
curtkram,
You're just a paid smurf.
i am anxiously awaiting the next 2 lines of your haiku R
Now, if my boss tells me to go outside and dig a hole for a tree they are putting in the back of the building I'm going to have to politely decline. Is there a legal position for me to say this is not my job, I don't know, but I do know it is outright insane. I work a desk job, I have shoulder issues, I wear nice dress clothes because the office has a dress code, that is not an acceptable task to demand of an employee in this position.
So where is the line drawn?
Use your gut to decide that line.
The 'good person' versus 'bad person' comes in as arbitrary and totally biased upon individual perception. Maybe he's using planting tree's as a team building and care for the environment statement: In their mind, they are a good person.... you are free to think otherwise, but just know who signs the check and hires and fires in the firm. By refusing to participate, which you are free to do, he may adopt a perception that you don't fit in well with the office culture; he can adopt you aren't a 'good person' perception.
Sidenote: Also keep in mind some of this reflects the individual taste of that boss and the sort of thing they might like doing; If you are good at reading folks, you'll be able to tell whether or not they think they are giving you a gift or assigning you a turd. If it was a gift; Refusal is rejecting them and their values which can be shaky ground.
My wife runs across this sort of stuff all the time in her corporate world with all the various teambuilding, volunteering, and cross-training stuff. Seriously, she's had to play volleyball, race rc cars around the parking lot, and do field day events under the guise of teambuilding. (to me, that sounds fun, but she's a worker bee type so she adopts the perception that it is a waste of company resources and capital to purchase the 'toys', lunches, etc.).. You can say 'no'. But unless you are a top producer who can get away with turning it away because you are a profitable asset they'd be stupid for losing, you'll be cut down and eventually thrown away under that same guise of "not a team player".
Curt, you do know that Rick (ie "building designer") has no employees of his own, right? Also, he has no job in architecture, dropped out of school, and lives in the basement of mommy's house.
brud, that doesn't prevent him from writing a haiku. i bet many of the best haiku writers in history didn't even go to haiku school. also, you could say some things are assumptions and some are not. i don't mind if he wants to pretend to be someone he isn't on the internet, but i think there is a point where we shouldn't be misleading other people to such an extent, and it would be better if we encouraged and empowered those young people who didn't take the sage advice to get out of the profession, rather than telling them they're slaves, or dismissing them as 'entitled millennials.'
Brud-G,
True, I do not have employees at this time. I do however have EIN. I also do not have long term employees. I may have someone do a small task that might be for an hour or so and that's contracted employment in its own right. The reason is cash revenue flow does not make it financially prudent to hire employees for long term duration.
As for your comment on dropping out of school is comical. I might not be taking courses this year out of financial reasons but I have been taking college courses for 13 years with more earned course credits behind my name than any B.Arch degree. I also have a business to run and I can not just shut business down for much longer with economy progressively getting better. There is also the software business as well.
As for your comment about basement... lol. Registered place of business and commercially zoned for residential-commercial use with home office/professional service establishment permitted outright. What's your point. I'm not inclined in accumulating $100K loans without an equal to or greater annual income. Students should not have to spend more than 10% of their income on student loans and generally, your annual income to sum of annual student loan payments should be 10:1 or higher. If you spend more than 10% of your annual income on the loans then you progressively impoverishing yourself and it is not financially responsible at some point over the course of your loan payments.
I'm not an employee to an architect. I may do an occassional contract work with an architect but I have my own building design business and software development business. I have yet to decide whether or not pursuing architectural licensure is even worth it. However, that is for me to decide and not anyone else's business as that is personal.
I'll add to what mightyaa said:
Dress code is a policy that the boss may suspend at his or her will under a given context of work to be assigned. There is something called a jumpsuit and all. In addition, if the boss is going to assign such a task to an employee, they are going to either provide you a jump suit to get into or assign the task in advance enough like on a weekend or something and would require you to dress appropriately for such task.
ok... if they weren't a jerk, they would use some other color.
TL,DR.
Boring, boring, boring.
Never in a million years would I write a word-for-word transcript of a meeting. Meeting notes that capture the essence are good enough. I'd have my employer's head if they insisted otherwise.
Timothy Sadler
speaks nothing but the truth
listen carefully
Getting busy in a burger King bathroom.
I like the girls with the boom
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.