StudioR, I think you handled it well. It IS your employer's ultimate decision, however you proposed an alternative with the potential to save time/money. Ultimately, you don't know what goes on behind the scenes and for now, you are best off being flexible with your boss and trusting that they have a plan. They may just want you to be exposed to this side of the job "for your own good," and that's okay. Architecture is a marathon, not a sprint.
At some point, your time will be more valuable and you'll be abke to delegate tasks like these to somebody else. Hang in there.
That is not clear Richard. It seems you're saying people don't have any interest in their own lives. It's as if you think what I do with my life and what I get paid to do that that task shouldn't matter to me because my life should be dedicated to the profit of some other person who probably doesn't give a shit about me. What if I'm interested in my own well-being? Is that just not allowed?
'Entitled' typically means a baby boomer is just crying because someone else won't take care of them and they're too dumb or too lazy to take care of themselves. That's not always the case, but if someone is separating you by your generation, it's a good chance.
"is this normal stuff to happen in an architecture firm?"
yes. it is normal stuff to happen in an architecture firm. it's also normal stuff to happen in, you know, a goddamn JOB. not every minute of work is a f***ing rainbow, and sometimes you have to do something tedious and pointless so you get to do something cool. grow up.
Mar 4, 15 11:04 am ·
·
curtkram,
Employees have a say in their personal lives and whether to stay working for an employer or not. An employee does not have anything to say about how they are used by an employer because when you are clocked in, the employer contractually owns your time, body and mind for whatever task the employers needs done during your workshift. This is because you signed the paper to be employed which means by law, you are contractually bound to fulfill the tasks assigned to you as long as you are employed. You can choose to quit and risk being unemployed for 6 months to several years or never get employed in architecture field again in an environment where there are often 200+ unique individuals applying for each job posting out there and a number of them are applying for multiple jobs. Considering the competition for job positions, the employer has the leverage. Do you want to commit career suicide quitting? Are you in a position to start your own architecture or related business? In other words, before quitting a job or getting yourself fired, make sure you have a viable exit strategy or you may be in a world of problems.
Employees have a right and say about their personal lives not their employment lives in the sense of having a say in the matters of how the employer runs the business. In other words, people need to learn to keep their noses out of other people's businesses and it is not an employee's business to speak to an employer about how the business is ran unless that is an explicit assigned task and duty. Yes, if your job assigned to you is management and administration of a business like a CEO, CFO, or similar type roles of business management and that is your job position assigned to you in which this is your job duty of the position, you don't come in telling your boss how to run his/her business or even suggest improvements unless the boss asks for your input.
Architecture buisinesses don't usually hire business managers/administrators unless they have equity and/or principal status unless they are a book keeper / accountant. That is because architecture firms are generally small (comparatively) and privately held businesses not public stock corporations.
Mar 4, 15 12:03 pm ·
·
Employees by definition is simply hired labor. (labor in either physical, mental or both) The role of an employee is to dedicate their labor during the course of their employment and work shift to the generation of revenue for the owners of the business.
Your job is literally to do what employee assigns you to do in terms of responsibilities.
Employment is not about serving the interest of employees but generating revenue for the business and therefore profit for the owners. After all, you don't get the profits, you get a share of that revenue in the form of salary or wage after all, it comes out of it. In fact, employers have to pay their employees and creditors before they may pay themselves, at least in the U.S.
If an employer say 'jump'... you 'jump'. If employer say 'sit', you sit. Employment is a military-like chain of command structure. What you do on your off the clock, so to speak, is your own personal life as long as what you do does not reflect back negatively on the business.
You have an interest in your life and career and may choose whether to stay employed at that company or choose another or form your own business. However, when it comes to employment, it is not the employee's business unless they have ownership share. Unless you own part or whole, the business, it is not your business and it is insubordination to tell an employer /owner of the business how to run his or her business UNLESS you are directed the role, duties, and responsibilities of business management and administration and even then, you are not the boss. Your job is to make recommendations from which the owners/principals aka BOARD OF DIRECTORS/PRINCIPALS may approve or deny.
Chain of command, corporate or employment life is pretty much like serving in the military because that model is used in both private sector businesses as well as in military.
the employer contractually owns your time, body and mind
where is this codified? can we get the archinect podcast lawyer to touch on the relationship between human beings and personal property?
typically an employer pays their employees at the end of the month, so the employee comes to work, then the employer pays them. that means your employees don't actually owe you anything, you owe them once they show up. i'm sure the courts will agree that you have to pay your employees should you chose to change your mind and not pay them after they've already showed up; also that you don't actually have any rights to ownership of said people.
the part about a voluntary association means the relationship between you and your employee is a negotiated agreement. in the end, the way to enforce said agreement is to fire the employee or for the employee to quit. the employee risks unemployment, the employer risks a revolving door office with only the dumbest and most desperate employees.
if you own a firm, your success comes in large part from the work of your employees. if your firm's primary mission is to race to the bottom and hire the most desperate and scared people who won't question what a great guy you are, then i'm sure it's working for you.
Do you want to commit career suicide quitting?
would working for you already be committing career suicide?
Are you in a position to start your own architecture or related business?
is this the right question to ask? should people like you really be starting firms based on fear of getting fired? that kind of thing is what causes the wrong people to own firms, and reinforces your faulty line of thinking.
You guys are taking such extreme positions on this. Of course an employee has a right to care about the kind of tasks that are assigned to them. But also, of course it's silly to kick up a fuss every time something tedious and/or not technically in your job description is assigned to you. Most of us live in a happy medium where as long as the task is not particularly detrimental (e.g. the employer requires you to work all night, do something illegal, etc.) we roll with it. Then if those tasks become too frequent, we bring it up in a professional manner, for instance during our annual review. But most likely, these sorts of things are occasional in nature and it doesn't significantly impact your career in any way to go along with it, and in fact refusing to do things like this will usually hurt you. Yes you have a right and a reason to care about what kind of assignments you get, but use some judgement—this is not the hill you should die on.
^-- unless you work for R. Balkins. in which case, such professional discussions would be an explanation of your lack of worth due to the fact you don't have equity in the business, and probably a long historical lecture on the constitutionality of equity ownership.
Mar 4, 15 2:57 pm ·
·
curtkram,
All employment is a contractual. There is no such thing as employment without a contract because everything that is an agreement between parties is a contract. When you are employed, you are contracted to do tasks assigned to you, work at least so many hours and therefore paid for the hours works or paid a salary.
Basically, failure to perform your duties as an employee is a breach of employment contract which is grounds for termination (being fired). It's codified by employment contract which for all intents and purpose has the effect of statutory codification. You agree to do tasks assigned to you by employment contract which often involves you actually signing a piece of paper when you are hired before you start working. Remember that piece of paper you signed.
Court cases for over 200 years reinforces my very point. When you becoe an employee, you agree to the terms of your employment contract and if you are to be a full time employee working 40 hours a week, you work 40 hours. If you don't then you maybe in breach of contract (failing to perform your duties).
It's in the case laws which still stands to this day. My point is you sign/agree to commit your body, mind and time to perform the duties assigned to you when you become an employee. They own that time, body and mind for the number of hours a day/week per terms of the employment contract terms. Employees are legal assets and/or liabilities because money is tied up in the employees because they take an investment and tie up equitable resources in that employee.
Therefore, when you fail to perform, you do cause equitable harm to your employer. There is damage. Since law such as contractual law is an equity law case, you need to keep in mind that it is about money and equity restitution for equitable damage (financial harm/damage).
Not only can you be fired, you can be sued if you fail or refuse to do the tasks assigned as it can often and do often result in some form of equitable/financial damage. Which maybe small or big. Remember, you have a duty of care to not due harm on anyone and especially your contractual relationships with other like your employer.
No employer serves their employee other than timely compensation for employees labor. That is the only thing an employer owes an employee and that is the only right an employee has other than being illegally discriminated by adopted discrimination laws.
Employees has no legal right other than what is explicitly codified in statutes of law. Frankly, there isn't that much. You can care about the tasks all you want but employees can not demand employers to do anything. An employers willingness to aid you in your professional development is up to the employer's own heart and interest as well as how. An employer doesn't owe you professional development and making sure you complete your internship requirements in a timely manner. For example in the U.S., no employer works for NCARB except NCARB. Employers do not have to provide you the training hours in the most efficient manner to get you licensed in the shortest amount of time. IDP interns aka employees can not demand employers to bend over backwards to give your training opportunities to your whim because you have no right to demand an employer to do anything other than what is explicitly required by law.
Nothing in NCARB's IDP training program legally requires anything from an employer (IDP supervisor) other than honesty and forthright/candidness in approving submitted IDP training hours and to do so in a responsible/timely manner. Beyond that, NCARB has no power over the employer and nor does employees. The legal system hasn't changed much and the one main difference between an employee and a slave is an employee is paid and is free when 'off the clock' but when 'on the clock', you are basically no different than a slave/indentured servant except you are paid for your time,labor,body and mind.
At the end of the day, anything more than this is glorified fabulous bullshit.
Mar 5, 15 12:39 am ·
·
Basically, when employers are willing to be concerned and listen to the needs of an employees professional development, that is a privilege to the employee. It is not an employee's right. It's a privilege. You better KNOW the difference between a right and a privilege. It would be a rude awakening to the employee to think he has ALL these rights when in fact it is merely a privilege.
The law in this matter is no different for architecture business than it is any other business including a burger flipping job.
An employers only needs to care about the welfare of an employee to extent mandated by law. In many countries, that is only physical welfare and to extent mental welfare providing that it doesn't harm other employees safety or otherwise employee's own physical safety. This does not mean they have to bend over backward to whatever whiny b.s. an employee tripes up. It doesn't mean they have to bend over backward to make sure you are progressing forward in your professional career or even have to care if you progress.
Don't confuse the privilege of an employer's care as a right. I'm not saying I wouldn't care about the professional development of employees but we need to not confuse privileges with rights and ethical obligations with mandatory requirements. Remember they are not the same on BOTH accounts.
I've got no idea what the government is like in Korea. Yet, there are those here in the US who are absolutely paranoid about 'public accountability'; So everything is documented in full. Word for word, every email, every little single piece of correspondence goes into a file 'in case' someone ever wants to go through it all to prove some corruption or whatever.
From the architects side, I can remember doing this. Sure you can use voice recognition software, but you can't bill that easily as X many hours of administration time. Their paranoia cost them, and the taxpayers, lots of money. Dictation is my preferred way because of what the person doing this can learn.
Learn? You get to know exactly what goes on in these meetings and have that exposure. You get to see how upper management handles difficult clients. You can ponder over the things said and maybe start understanding the longer goals and foresight of negotiation. You can pick up on the subtleties of language, mood shifts, and key things that can pacify or enrage a client. The more you hear and do this, the better able you'll be to understand how you might be able to control a meeting, set the tone, and handle totally different and unique people.
My depositions are always word for word and I review the other depositions... You can learn wonderful things from a good well-prepared trail attorney. You'll discover how they use leading questions and arguments only to later haul them back around to challenge their target to approach their answers using a separate perspective (because the prior questions and directions shifted their thinking to other angles). It's the magic of communication, how to argue, and how to negotiate in your favor.
Basically, use this as a learning tool to gain a greater understanding of people and directing the conversations. Think about how the speaker may have made errors or what they could have done to shift the mood. Then apply it to your own Machiavellianism demons. Plus your typing speed will vastly improve. :P
Richard is technically correct. Anything you do for an employee is a privilege and not the employee right as long as it stays out of the outright abuse realm. The taste of that sandwich though put so bluntly is unpalatable. An employee doesn’t want to think like that at all. Enter dynamics and negotiation.
The art of negotiation is not taught in schools. If taught, they typically do it wrong where the belief is sound reason and rationalism will win an argument like a stupid debate club. It can… but most people make choices and form opinion based on an emotional reward and value system IF they want to come out of it feeling good about those decisions. That is what you want people to feel. Rational factual based choices don’t carry that extra emotional attachment or ownership and often are received as unpalatable like Richards factual argument. That affects your relationship with that person.
It is a dark art. Every meeting you will have is a negotiation; you want ‘this’ to happen, and it is up to you to get them to want it too. That’s the machiavelliansm at play; not necessarily to deceive, but to alter the subject’s perception into agreement where they may even think it was their idea and are on board and happy with that choice.
You really don’t have to lie. An example might be leading a discussion into code intent, thus shifting their head from ‘letter of the code’ to ‘intent of the code’ before popping the question about a certain variance. Essentially you are leading them to the mental place they need to be to make that choice that feels right. In my prior post, I attempted to shift from a necessary and totally sucky job task into an opportunity to learn by shifting the perception and approaching the task with a different perspective.
Architecture is a a great hobby but a horrible career, look at what your bosses are doing and you will see even the managers jobs are menial, boring and low payed. Get a day job doing something else, it will be just as boring but higher paid and you will have more free time to invest in architecture as a hobby.
Mar 5, 15 12:21 pm ·
·
mightyaa,
Great addition to the point because reality of our rights is a sh-t sandwich that leaves an unpalatable taste due to our aspiration to be leaders and making the decisions vs. being a subordinate to someone else. Pride doesn't change the facts of reality but the added point of our social relationship with our employers goes along ways to negotiating the environment of the work place environment that is palatable.
There are practical reasons that employers should strive to have good relationships with their employees and vice versa and aspire to develop a productive work environment. This much be remembered as a privilege that we should aspire and fight to keep.
Just remember to not cross the line in assuming our privileges are rights guaranteed and protected by the court of law.
The art of persuasion by winning the employer's decision.
quitting and being fired are two sides of the same coin. you can replace shitty employees with shitty employees pretty easy, but it's not as easy to replace good employees with good employees. employees can replace a shitty job with a shitty job fairly easy, but it's hard to replace a good job with a good job. the employer just doesn't have that big of an advantage because they can fire employees, unless what they want to provide is a shitty product with shitty service. if what you want to put in front of your clients is shit because it makes you feel important, then you're probably doing a good job. i suppose that's where you see the difference between a 'right' and a 'privelage.' when it comes down to it, as an employer, you don't have any rights either.
other than that, i have no idea what you're talking about with regard to 'employee rights.' there are obviously actual laws to protect employees in some circumstances, but those laws have nothing to do with the situation the OP described, with what i'm saying, with whatever legal groundwork R is trying to make, or anything else that i can see in this thread. R was the only person trying to make this a legal case, but he hasn't actually produced whatever law it is he's trying to defend. he has explained how the united state constitution applies to a korean working in seol though (which is not within the United State's jurisdiction).
it sounds to me all your saying about negotiation mighty is that you like to be in charge so you'll believe you're more important than you probably are. it's not a lie, it's more like you're leading your thoughts to the conclusion you want to believe.
R, you didn't answer my question. where did you learn your interpretation of law? or are you uncomfortable with that question?
(sorry people for being lazy about reading all the comments-esply the ones from page2..-lol little did i expect this thread to have this comments....)
im probably saying the same thing repeatedly but didn't even jump on to the 'law'level. i just can't understand how the people from other group can so easily toss out their duties to the others like it is so f. natural. -and certainly i don't want to be the benign victim in this capitalist jungle....
it seems to me that the reality at archi firms sucks but im glad that i didn't skip this stage. this happening taught me a lot and helped me have my own perspective/value to take/goals to achieve for the future which i couldn't really have clear image of.
Mar 5, 15 9:24 pm ·
·
curtkram,
Where did I learn the law,... attorneys and the actual laws and court cases studied over.
Frankly put, the laws would exceed the character limits of the forum posts. since each jurisdiction varies at the word for word level, I'm not going to put my time in posting them.
Rights have to be set forth in law to be a right. If it isn't codified in law, it is not a right. A privilege only elevates to a right after it is codified in law as a right otherwise, it is not a right and therefore not legally protected as a right.
The only human rights is that which is codified in law as a right. If it is not, it is a privilege that is voluntarily defended, provide, protected or otherwise.
Even those so called 'rights' only defined in case laws is merely political or judicial privileges set forth by a judge. Since Judges may not create laws, they can only enforce it. Because a Judge's ruling isn't the law.
Having said that, there are alot of so called 'rights' like 'employee rights' but reality is there isn't that many actual employee rights as there isn't that many actual rights codified in law.
curtkram, I'm not sure how you interpret that I was saying U.S. Constitution applies to a South Korean but I can tell to many of the rights found in the U.S. Constitution, many countries adopted similar provisions into their laws over the years and largely copying the concept of the U.S. Constitution. Alot of which happened over the course of the last 50-100 years as the government of South Korea, in its current form, is like 28 years old and it is the 6th incarnation of the Republic of Korea (South Korea) when it formed in 1948.
so, you have no rights as an employer either right?
you don't have to copy the whole law that grants you the right to own people, but if you have a link from findlaw or something i would appreciate it. the 13th amendment to the constitution (which actually happened, you can read it here) kind of suggests you're wrong.
i would also point you to the US Code, Title 18, Part 1, section 77 which suggest that if i was your employee i would have the right to leave at any time, and if you tried to restrict that right, you could be fined and imprisoned for up to 20 years. it's quite clear in section 1584 that even if you pay to own my mind and body, you cannot hold me to involuntary servitude. section 1589 says you can't force your employees to do anything, and you can't benefit from forced labor. you can't threaten the abuse of law or legal process as a form of intimidation either, which it seems is what you're trying to do here.
you, as an employer, have the same rights i do as an employee of course. i don't have the right to own your mind and body any more than you have the right to own mine.
you can look up the US Code to verify that. see how i based my opinion on things that happen in real life instead of making up a bunch of shit? are you this obtuse in real life, or do you save this special side of yourself for the internets?
My father learned to paper the file and did so religiously because of lawsuits. Most of the time it didn't make any difference.
I take a different path. If that's what is required to do business I pass.
Mar 6, 15 12:30 am ·
·
Codified in law. Right. An employee can always quit. However, your quitting doesn't mean you escape sue of breach of contract and damages resulting from you quitting and failing to do the tasks assigned while on duty.
Since the U.S. Constitution is the SUPREME CODIFIED LAW OF THE LAND even above the U.S. Code and any regulation / rule from any department, the 13th amendment sets forth the basis for that very U.S. Code you quoted but lets take a legal analysis look at it....
Ok... authors of this following document has done some leg work:
"Consider two cases. In the first, a farmer finds a disabled man with the intellectual capacity of a twelve-year-old by the side of the road and takes him home. He makes the man work seven days a week for seventeen hours a day. The farmer pays him fifteen dollars a week for a while, but eventually requires that he work for free, providing him with only minimal food, shelter, clothing, and medical care. The farmer isolates the man from any contact with the outside world and subjects him to physical abuse. When the man escapes, the farmer captures him and returns him to work. This continues for twenty years.1 In the second case, a successful college football coach contracts with a university to work for five years in return for a six-figure annual salary. After coaching four seasons, the coach takes a more lucrative offer from a rival school. The first university sues, seeking an order of specific performance requiring the coach to finish out his remaining season.2"
Changing jobs which is quitting or resigning a job to start another. Sure, we know the first example case would be slavery or involuntary servitude... note: INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE is not the same thing as INDENTURED SERVANT or at least not all indentured servitude is involuntary servitude. In the second example clearly highlights a case of contractual obligation. The coach can't just quit to find another job. At least not so fast. He was paid this figure on contractual conditions of a agreed 'performance'.
Every employment requires a performance for a compensation although not always like this "Coach" case which would hold you up.
Since an employee may not harm their employer with intent as that would be an abuse. Abuse is a two way road.
Mar 6, 15 3:17 am ·
·
It's late so I'm not clear if the above is written clearly. So, deal with that later.
not clear R. I'll wait until you've had a chance to collect your thoughts a bit better.
in the first case, the employer has no rights.
in the second, the footnotes say that was based on this case. gerry dinardo left left vandy for LA State. you tell me, did the coach have to go back to vandy because that university still owned his body and mind? the employer got some money, but they don't have any rights over the body and mind of the coach. when you say "The coach can't just quit to find another job," obvoiusly he can, and he did, but there are financial consequences to that choice.
you point out how involuntary servitude is different that indentured service, but they're still both illegal. that's not a gray area....
while forming a more cohesive comment that explains how you think you have some sort of 'rights' over your employee's body and mind, perhaps you could explain specifically what is in my employment contract, or studior's contract, or fulcrum's contract, which probably doesn't exist because many architects don't have employment contracts, or if it did exist you wouldn't have access to it, that would grant the rights you fallaciously claim to hold.
if you learned about law from a lawyer, they were a bad lawyer. if i were you i would be pissed off at them and send them an angry email. if you learned about law by reading actual laws or by studying cases, show them. i've linked the actual text of the constitution, a specific law (which i didn't link, buy you can google it pretty easy), and a court case to support the fact that you don't have any rights as an employer that i don't also have as an employee. that shows that it isn't hard.
if you threaten your employees with legal action based on this distorted view of the legal system, that's intimidation, and that's illegal.
He's not wrong curtkram. There are very few 'rights' beyond civil protections and the basic human rights stuff based on fair pay - fair work ideals (that are woefully outdated and have massive loopholes). That doesn't mean you can abuse, but that also goes both ways.
and I lol'd at the self important ego bash pointed my direction. It seems to me you'd rather everyone take on a "victim of them" mentality.
"Look how cool it is to paint the white picket fence!" (then getting others to also enjoy it). Would you rather Tom Sawyer sat out there in the heat demonizing those that 'made him' paint the fence or maybe just refuse and take that risk along with those ramifications? We've just got different approaches to life.
And yes, to a certain degree I do feel smarter for it simply because my way got the fence painted and everyone smiling. Your way would end like what exactly? I'm guessing another disgruntled human who is also spreading that negative to anyone in earshot... What a boost to moral it'd be getting everyone whining about their lot in life and focused on what they aren't or don't have. What that is, is the ability to decide what their job task should be: That is what the boss does.
so telling the OP and anyone else who works for a living that they have the right to exercise free will is negative? telling them that they are not owned by people like you and R Balkins is negative, because they should just bend over and let you do what you want? on the other hand, the positive message would be that you manipulate people?
here is some more information on what a positive person you are
aren't you going to start working for other people anyway? my message is that you should be able to do that. it's a positive message to you.
i agree that there are few 'rights' to being an employee, but there are also few 'rights' to being an employer. in fact, you're far more restricted as an employer. the employee typically has more rights, because they don't exercise the undue influence employers are often in a position to exercise. that's how labor laws work.
being in a position of ownership gives you a different set of responsibilities. if you think it's just about getting to go on longer vacations or making money off other people's work, you have no place being in an ownership position because you probably don't understand what it means to be responsible. it's not easy. there are difficult decisions to make and you have to act in the best interest of your company as well as your employees to keep everything running. if you don't want to take on that difficult task, then getting a job for someone else without the expectation of becoming an indentured servant should be a viable option for you.
i'm saying you're not a slave. that is not a negative message.
Mar 6, 15 12:29 pm ·
·
Indentured servitude isn't entirely illegal. Only when it is involuntary servitude. Even then, involuntary servitude exists as a penalty for crime.
Employment is voluntary servitude. You voluntarily agree (contractually agree) to lease your body & mind in form of labor for compensation. The employer owns that lease on you to extent of terms of contract. The law is about equity, ultimately and restitution of equitable harm or financial damage.
It is that money is tied up and invested in the employee. The more their is tied up and greater the harm resulting from a breach of contract (such as refusal to do work assigned), the more the courts are mandated by law for right an equitable harm and formulate some degree of restitution to the harmed.
Lets take an example, you (employee) are contractually paid $750,000 up front for a 5 year contract of labor of $150,000 a year. You worked only 3 years of the 5 year and decided to quit. You still owe $300,000. That's a clear example of equitable harm because your failure to fulfill the remaining two years is basically theft.
There is a clear basis and reason for financial restitution or fulfillment of contractual obligation by the employee to the employer.
When you work for someone, you are selling essentially a time-share of your body and mind and lease it to the employer. Hence the basis of "market for labor". It's about the equity.
In a contract where you are paid in advance, it is alot easier to see the equitable harm for failing to perform. Even in small low-pay labor there is certain portions of employment taken out and paid in advance on an employee especially in salaried workers.
Wage workers are less likely to have as much direct money tied up and is usually a small amount. When you are paid in advance for performance due, even more the importance that you are required to fulfill or payback what is owed.
Lets say, you signed a contract to be paid in advance $750,000 for a 5 year employment contract (salary positions are often more customized contractual arrangements than wage standard boiler plate employment agreement) but you never showed up to work and ran off. This wanton contractual fraud or theft would obviously amount to criminal theft. So the question is, does an employer have right of restitution for the financial harm? Does the employer have a right for performance for the amount paid for or repayment of what is owed?
employee has a choice? Right... perform, repay back or be arrested and thrown in jail, court seizure of bank account(s) and have amount owed to employer restored.. (however the legal procedure required to arrive at that result).
You can certain quit but you have to fulfill your obligations or pay restitution.
Employment is a form of contractual relationship. Much like an independent contractor relationship, employment relations shares the same principles of contractual obligations.
Whether it is custom contract employment or a general standard employment 'contract', it is still a contract and all contractual relationships have a performance requirement and a compensation requirement. If you are paid any amount that you had not performed and fulfilled then the unearned amount fundamentally must either be fulfilled in order to keep or the unearned amount of money repayed back to the employer.
One way an employer may (depending on specifics of law in the locality) clear small sums of unearned employment and free you from that obligation is to take it out of the final paycheck provided the amount doesn't exceed the amount of final paycheck after taxes and withholdings taken out. Any amount left that exceeds that would still be owed.
It is easier to break away employment if you are not paid in advance. But other factors are also considered when it comes to equity invested on basis of contractual agreements. Of course there has to be a financial harm as that burden of proof is with the employer to show before court of law.
Mar 6, 15 12:42 pm ·
·
curtkram,
you can exercise free will to an extent. But place of employment is not a democracy. When you are being paid to work, you are to work otherwise, you must not claim those hours because an employer doesn't hire you for your opinion unless they ask for it or that is your assignment to do from which you paid for. Otherwise, your opinion belongs outside the place of employment when you are "OFF THE CLOCK". When you are "ON THE CLOCK", you know what that means... right...... your time is being paid for in 15 minute or 1-hour blocks or otherwise.
Employment is like serving in military. After all, serving in military is employment as well. It's very much in common and share many of the same characteristics. There is a chain of command. It's not a democracy. You ask permission to speak freely otherwise you hold your peace. You can be discharged (terminated employment) honorably or dishonorably (ie. in good accord or in bad. ). Your job is to do what you are told to do. You can quit, of course.
It's the 'corporate' life which military and businesses commonly structured around to establish order out of chaos.
Otherwise, you are taking the employers money without earning those hours. If your opinion is not asked for or otherwise part of the assignment as set forth, discussing your opinion while refusing to do the work... on your employer's dime (ie. when you are on the clock and being paid for) is basically financial theft because you are basically taking your employer's money and not doing the work assigned and that is technically unearned hours and unearned pay.
Some employers may encourage more feedback and that's a privilege.
Employees should not assume that they are permitted to speak freely in a place of employment. The Bill of Rights itself is protection from government restricting your rights as a citizen. Citizens are free to speak freely in public lands (places of business is actually private lands, like a person's home, even though it may have public accommodation.) Like a home, a place of business is open to free speech as the owner/business owner permits.
Your freedom of speech essentially ends at the public right of way/public lands & your own home or other properties you own. When you are in some other person's home of place of business, you are basically a guest in their domain. their rules. Basically, 'house rules' so to speak. The point is even employees needs to respect the rules of the owner as guests as it is a privilege to be there because you do not have a right to be there. You have a privilege to be there because it is revocable. Granted, employers may have to honor the privilege they offer to an extent. Employees have to be able to arrive and enter the premises of the place of employment. Employers have to honor that and honor access to areas they make available for employee as long as the employee is an employee. Common sense... right. But it is still a privilege, ultimately, because employment is a privilege. Employee has the right to be accommodated to extent of being able to fulfill work being assigned. This is not without limits, either. All this employee rights hinges on the privilege of being an employee.
So honor thy employer for thy employer is providing a privilege of employment for compensation.
The flip side is an employer should respect their employees within reasonable extent. That leaves into another post.
Careful, Richard. You're going to crash the server.
Mar 6, 15 1:38 pm ·
·
Employees do not have right to the profits (unless that is set forth in contractual agreement). Owners/Employers owns the intellectual property rights. Owner/Employers owns the assets. Granted, they are in a higher level of responsibility, they have the right to lead. Employees do not. Employees do not, although an employee can quit and become set up their own business. However, employers have the RIGHT to set forth the rules and laws, a right of all people in their own domain. Like a home owner's right. Property owner's rights. Employers are often that. They maybe privilege many privileges from the owner of the building in the case of land lord / tenant arrangement but the employee is not a privy of contract to the land lord. But the business owner has the privileges to set forth rules (within the rental/lease agreement with the land lord) to set order and structure. Employees do not unless set forth and privilege casted down and ultimately approved and not 'vetoed' by the business owners/employers.
But employee rights although has a lower standard of responsibility entirely exists on the foundation of a privilege that is often easily revocable. To be an employee or not be. (That's the question to ponder in mind.) Keep that mind when employers has this question in their heads.... to keep an employee or not to keep.
Don't forget the case laws and definitions set forth from the Colonial laws and cases which still holds premise in interpreting legal code of federal law and the U.S. Constitution as they still have applications to defining the rights of people in the United States.
This thing called... hiring and firing/layoff/termination of employment.
For other countries, historic context must be followed through according to each country and the context behind the meaning of those laws as they were adopted and their precepts that informs the underlying meaning of the words and phrases used in the law. Just like we do here in the U.S.
The psycho babble bull is full of awesome. From the article:
Most manipulative individuals have four common characteristics:
1.They know how to detect your weaknesses.
2.Once found, they use your weaknesses against you.
3.Through their shrewd machinations, they convince you to give up something of yourself in order to serve their self-centered interests.
4.In work, social, and family situations, once a manipulator succeeds in taking advantage of you, he or she will likely repeat the violation until you put a stop to the exploitation.
Hmm. You have a design you like best and present to a client. You know what they want and value the most. Through your ‘shrewd machination’ you tout how well that design you like best fits their wants. You “exploit” your knowledge of them they shared with you. You know they have a weakness for that curb appeal and image the building would project publically using whatever architectural style preference they seem to value. I can’t believe you of all people would use your intimate knowledge of them to manipulate their choice. How awful of you!
Someone should tell them to fire you immediately because you are exploiting what they like to get your way!
Or expand it… you know they are ‘weak’ on how much they can spend. You designed just outside their spoken budget, but know they could afford this but are hesitant. Don’t you sell the concept first to get them excited before breaking that bad news that they’ll have to dig a bit deeper? Don’t you present negative ramifications to the design they now love IF they don’t ante up?
Again… totally abusive relationship right?
Just because it’s raining outside doesn’t mean you live in a tropical climate. Mental illness are based on normal behaviors that just fall outside the normal bell curve of tolerance. A baby will manipulate you for attention by crying; it is not hurt or hungry. As it grows it refines that ability as it learns you… So by 3, they can flash those puppy dog eyes and get that extra cookie. Human nature.
Mar 6, 15 2:00 pm ·
·
Normal behavior of any living creature, it will do whatever to get what it wants.
It can even be a dog. Dogs do it. Humans do it. Natural behavior. So what's insane is being what you are not. That is being non-natural life form. Human societies have been striving to be different and not natural by these societal ethics to elevate ourselves on a metaphorical pedestal.
Kind of ironic, isn't it that it is the nature of being an architect serving our clients while serving our own interests in the process that they teach you in architecture school to some extent and in professional life is taught. Wow... we must be abusive scumbags.
R., that was 1,631 words and you can't provide a single link to a law or a court case to support your opinion.
so what you have is an opinion, based on what you want the world to be like rather than what's actually like, and you seem to think that if you use more words that will start to make you more relevant?
hopefully the archinect lawyer will tell us what ownership rights a person has over other people. then you can publicly apologize.
Mar 6, 15 2:41 pm ·
·
In Oregon, I have the right to shoot a tresspasser. What law or court case do I need to quote. After all,the right to protect ones properties from theft. It's in the federal law, parts in the U.S. Constitution, additional parts in every court proceeding ever. If we didn't have a right to protect and defend properties be it through any means under law, it should be clear from the get go, if you didn't have the right to protect or lawfully acquire restitution for theft or other harms, there wouldn't be a single court or lawsuit. Duh!
If I paid you to do something and you took the money and didn't do it, then you committed theft.
When you are hired to work and don't do it, you are stealing from the company. It is essentially a financial theft because you are being paid for the time employed "on the clock".
When you are not doing what you are told while on the clock, you are wasting time to make your number of labor hours spent increase to get paid more money. That is essentially a form of embezzlement which is a form of theft. although in such small numbers it is not usually referred to under the wording 'embezzlement' but it basically is. Mechanically, it is theft of employer's money when you refuse to do your assigned tasks, deliberately taking your sweet ass time or otherwise doing something willfully wrong to your employer to take advantage of him or her by not performing accordingly just to get more money out of the employer. It is technically a form of theft and theft is generally a criminal act with jail time as a sentence.
Taking money you haven't rightfully earned without fulfilling it or paying pack the unearned portion of the money according to the contractual agreement in a timely manner is theft.
It can rise to a criminal level where you can go to jail, and possibly fined at the same time. I don't think I need to quote the laws and statutes of theft, robbery, embezzlement, etc. It's in the statutes of every state in the U.S.
Mar 6, 15 3:24 pm ·
·
I somewhat simplified it and surely not every little nuance is going to result in sympathy of a court.
However, I'm not saying it is worth an employer's time to sue someone because they refuse to do something for 5 minutes. If they refuse to do something, you can just fire them if they continue to refuse after 15 minutes. Under most employment situation, the loss is minimal financially. It just means task is reassigned to someone else.. usually a fixed rate salaried worker where overtime pay doesn't apply to them.
The Digital Underground post caught my attention.........Richard can you say all that in a haiku?
Mar 6, 15 5:35 pm ·
·
curtkram,
LOL! Get sued. Find out. Case law is founded in the legal framework. You heard of case precedence. There is a sh-t load of them, go to your local court house and did through the database. You generally can not access the database from a remote computer with committing a cyber crime to do so.
Not going to do that for you.
One thing is, a business is private personal property of its owner including the money. Contract law is a legal frame work and also applies to employment as all employment relationship is a form of contractual relationship.
A link worth looking at as it is easier to process than state by state links to a whole range of statutes and administrative rules. You can look them up yourself. Note: remember in contract law, it doesn't have to be written. Most employment is not entirely a written contract but a part verbal and part written documentation especially in an employment at will arrangement.
You sign an offer letter and sometimes also a handbook acknowledgement or both or some combination where you sign an agreement that describes some of the duties your position maybe assigned but almost always includes a clause of 'not limited to' and terms like ' ... any other tasks the supervisor/employer may assign.'
In addition, it informs you in the offer that you are paid $ ____ per hour or $_______ yearly or monthly salary. It will say whether or not the position is full time or not such as " employee will work up to 40 hours a week and maybe requested to work additional hours by the supervisor/employer at the request of the supervisor/employer.
One thing about contract law is the contract itself *IS* the codified legal framework beyond the codified public law. Often key elements are put in writing. Especially a position that is paid more than minimum wage.
This is especially more true with positions that requires a degree.
Remember that job offer you signed or handbook acknowledgement you signed and the verbal part of the interview or job offer. Alot of times, they have certain things written.
With at-will employment, you can quit anytime. Largely the article is about custom written contracts... basically a negotiated written contract employment vs. a conventional at-will employment contract which is much more loose in terms but it is a contract nonetheless. It is just that is is more one-way than a 'negotiated written employment contract' or basically written contracts are in the context of what the article is largely about.
Keep in mind, employment is a form of contractual relationship.
Of course, to retain the arrangement is an at-will employment, employer needs to choose his words wisely to not fall out of bounds. It is best not to state reasons for being fired unless it is clear there are certain actions that would likely result in termination of employment and that it is clear that those are not the only reasons one maybe terminated from employment.
However, with at-will employment, you can be terminated without good cause and it doesn't have to be stated why unless ordered by court to disclose reason. By the time, you can even see the light of day of a court hearing even 'greenlighted', the employer can have a legally compliant reason put together. If you piss off the boss and disrespect the boss's authority as employer, the boss can fire you and there is no recourse except if it actually violates law having jurisdiction.
You'll find that is quite a common form of employment in architecture that interns will typically have.
There are some rights from retaliation by complaining about some safety issue or otherwise reasons that codified public law may provide as protection against termination.
Aside from the few rights of being terminated in an unlawful manner under law, in at-will employment, you can be fired for next to anything and refusing to do your job is one area that will often be a basis an employer may terminate your employment.
In addition, at-will employment often have loose and open ended job duties requirements because every employee that would be hired for such positions will be assigned whatever task that comes about because someone has to do it and employers retains the power to assign duties and task assignments to whomever he/she decides.
Therefore, at-will employment typically are the most flexible in job duties the employer maybe able to assign because these employees will be doing whatever needs to be done (lawfully of course). End of story.
Employee quips about doing the task... Bye bye employee. Welcome new employee.
Mar 6, 15 6:04 pm ·
·
Olaf,
I don't do haiku very often so I don't know. Honestly.
is this normal stuff to happen in architecture firms.
StudioR, I think you handled it well. It IS your employer's ultimate decision, however you proposed an alternative with the potential to save time/money. Ultimately, you don't know what goes on behind the scenes and for now, you are best off being flexible with your boss and trusting that they have a plan. They may just want you to be exposed to this side of the job "for your own good," and that's okay. Architecture is a marathon, not a sprint.
At some point, your time will be more valuable and you'll be abke to delegate tasks like these to somebody else. Hang in there.
That is not clear Richard. It seems you're saying people don't have any interest in their own lives. It's as if you think what I do with my life and what I get paid to do that that task shouldn't matter to me because my life should be dedicated to the profit of some other person who probably doesn't give a shit about me. What if I'm interested in my own well-being? Is that just not allowed?
'Entitled' typically means a baby boomer is just crying because someone else won't take care of them and they're too dumb or too lazy to take care of themselves. That's not always the case, but if someone is separating you by your generation, it's a good chance.
"is this normal stuff to happen in an architecture firm?"
yes. it is normal stuff to happen in an architecture firm. it's also normal stuff to happen in, you know, a goddamn JOB. not every minute of work is a f***ing rainbow, and sometimes you have to do something tedious and pointless so you get to do something cool. grow up.
curtkram,
Employees have a say in their personal lives and whether to stay working for an employer or not. An employee does not have anything to say about how they are used by an employer because when you are clocked in, the employer contractually owns your time, body and mind for whatever task the employers needs done during your workshift. This is because you signed the paper to be employed which means by law, you are contractually bound to fulfill the tasks assigned to you as long as you are employed. You can choose to quit and risk being unemployed for 6 months to several years or never get employed in architecture field again in an environment where there are often 200+ unique individuals applying for each job posting out there and a number of them are applying for multiple jobs. Considering the competition for job positions, the employer has the leverage. Do you want to commit career suicide quitting? Are you in a position to start your own architecture or related business? In other words, before quitting a job or getting yourself fired, make sure you have a viable exit strategy or you may be in a world of problems.
Employees have a right and say about their personal lives not their employment lives in the sense of having a say in the matters of how the employer runs the business. In other words, people need to learn to keep their noses out of other people's businesses and it is not an employee's business to speak to an employer about how the business is ran unless that is an explicit assigned task and duty. Yes, if your job assigned to you is management and administration of a business like a CEO, CFO, or similar type roles of business management and that is your job position assigned to you in which this is your job duty of the position, you don't come in telling your boss how to run his/her business or even suggest improvements unless the boss asks for your input.
Architecture buisinesses don't usually hire business managers/administrators unless they have equity and/or principal status unless they are a book keeper / accountant. That is because architecture firms are generally small (comparatively) and privately held businesses not public stock corporations.
Employees by definition is simply hired labor. (labor in either physical, mental or both) The role of an employee is to dedicate their labor during the course of their employment and work shift to the generation of revenue for the owners of the business.
Your job is literally to do what employee assigns you to do in terms of responsibilities.
Employment is not about serving the interest of employees but generating revenue for the business and therefore profit for the owners. After all, you don't get the profits, you get a share of that revenue in the form of salary or wage after all, it comes out of it. In fact, employers have to pay their employees and creditors before they may pay themselves, at least in the U.S.
If an employer say 'jump'... you 'jump'. If employer say 'sit', you sit. Employment is a military-like chain of command structure. What you do on your off the clock, so to speak, is your own personal life as long as what you do does not reflect back negatively on the business.
You have an interest in your life and career and may choose whether to stay employed at that company or choose another or form your own business. However, when it comes to employment, it is not the employee's business unless they have ownership share. Unless you own part or whole, the business, it is not your business and it is insubordination to tell an employer /owner of the business how to run his or her business UNLESS you are directed the role, duties, and responsibilities of business management and administration and even then, you are not the boss. Your job is to make recommendations from which the owners/principals aka BOARD OF DIRECTORS/PRINCIPALS may approve or deny.
Chain of command, corporate or employment life is pretty much like serving in the military because that model is used in both private sector businesses as well as in military.
the employer contractually owns your time, body and mind
where is this codified? can we get the archinect podcast lawyer to touch on the relationship between human beings and personal property?
typically an employer pays their employees at the end of the month, so the employee comes to work, then the employer pays them. that means your employees don't actually owe you anything, you owe them once they show up. i'm sure the courts will agree that you have to pay your employees should you chose to change your mind and not pay them after they've already showed up; also that you don't actually have any rights to ownership of said people.
the part about a voluntary association means the relationship between you and your employee is a negotiated agreement. in the end, the way to enforce said agreement is to fire the employee or for the employee to quit. the employee risks unemployment, the employer risks a revolving door office with only the dumbest and most desperate employees.
if you own a firm, your success comes in large part from the work of your employees. if your firm's primary mission is to race to the bottom and hire the most desperate and scared people who won't question what a great guy you are, then i'm sure it's working for you.
Do you want to commit career suicide quitting?
would working for you already be committing career suicide?
Are you in a position to start your own architecture or related business?
is this the right question to ask? should people like you really be starting firms based on fear of getting fired? that kind of thing is what causes the wrong people to own firms, and reinforces your faulty line of thinking.
You guys are taking such extreme positions on this. Of course an employee has a right to care about the kind of tasks that are assigned to them. But also, of course it's silly to kick up a fuss every time something tedious and/or not technically in your job description is assigned to you. Most of us live in a happy medium where as long as the task is not particularly detrimental (e.g. the employer requires you to work all night, do something illegal, etc.) we roll with it. Then if those tasks become too frequent, we bring it up in a professional manner, for instance during our annual review. But most likely, these sorts of things are occasional in nature and it doesn't significantly impact your career in any way to go along with it, and in fact refusing to do things like this will usually hurt you. Yes you have a right and a reason to care about what kind of assignments you get, but use some judgement—this is not the hill you should die on.
^-- unless you work for R. Balkins. in which case, such professional discussions would be an explanation of your lack of worth due to the fact you don't have equity in the business, and probably a long historical lecture on the constitutionality of equity ownership.
curtkram,
All employment is a contractual. There is no such thing as employment without a contract because everything that is an agreement between parties is a contract. When you are employed, you are contracted to do tasks assigned to you, work at least so many hours and therefore paid for the hours works or paid a salary.
Basically, failure to perform your duties as an employee is a breach of employment contract which is grounds for termination (being fired). It's codified by employment contract which for all intents and purpose has the effect of statutory codification. You agree to do tasks assigned to you by employment contract which often involves you actually signing a piece of paper when you are hired before you start working. Remember that piece of paper you signed.
Court cases for over 200 years reinforces my very point. When you becoe an employee, you agree to the terms of your employment contract and if you are to be a full time employee working 40 hours a week, you work 40 hours. If you don't then you maybe in breach of contract (failing to perform your duties).
It's in the case laws which still stands to this day. My point is you sign/agree to commit your body, mind and time to perform the duties assigned to you when you become an employee. They own that time, body and mind for the number of hours a day/week per terms of the employment contract terms. Employees are legal assets and/or liabilities because money is tied up in the employees because they take an investment and tie up equitable resources in that employee.
Therefore, when you fail to perform, you do cause equitable harm to your employer. There is damage. Since law such as contractual law is an equity law case, you need to keep in mind that it is about money and equity restitution for equitable damage (financial harm/damage).
Not only can you be fired, you can be sued if you fail or refuse to do the tasks assigned as it can often and do often result in some form of equitable/financial damage. Which maybe small or big. Remember, you have a duty of care to not due harm on anyone and especially your contractual relationships with other like your employer.
No employer serves their employee other than timely compensation for employees labor. That is the only thing an employer owes an employee and that is the only right an employee has other than being illegally discriminated by adopted discrimination laws.
Employees has no legal right other than what is explicitly codified in statutes of law. Frankly, there isn't that much. You can care about the tasks all you want but employees can not demand employers to do anything. An employers willingness to aid you in your professional development is up to the employer's own heart and interest as well as how. An employer doesn't owe you professional development and making sure you complete your internship requirements in a timely manner. For example in the U.S., no employer works for NCARB except NCARB. Employers do not have to provide you the training hours in the most efficient manner to get you licensed in the shortest amount of time. IDP interns aka employees can not demand employers to bend over backwards to give your training opportunities to your whim because you have no right to demand an employer to do anything other than what is explicitly required by law.
Nothing in NCARB's IDP training program legally requires anything from an employer (IDP supervisor) other than honesty and forthright/candidness in approving submitted IDP training hours and to do so in a responsible/timely manner. Beyond that, NCARB has no power over the employer and nor does employees. The legal system hasn't changed much and the one main difference between an employee and a slave is an employee is paid and is free when 'off the clock' but when 'on the clock', you are basically no different than a slave/indentured servant except you are paid for your time,labor,body and mind.
At the end of the day, anything more than this is glorified fabulous bullshit.
Basically, when employers are willing to be concerned and listen to the needs of an employees professional development, that is a privilege to the employee. It is not an employee's right. It's a privilege. You better KNOW the difference between a right and a privilege. It would be a rude awakening to the employee to think he has ALL these rights when in fact it is merely a privilege.
The law in this matter is no different for architecture business than it is any other business including a burger flipping job.
An employers only needs to care about the welfare of an employee to extent mandated by law. In many countries, that is only physical welfare and to extent mental welfare providing that it doesn't harm other employees safety or otherwise employee's own physical safety. This does not mean they have to bend over backward to whatever whiny b.s. an employee tripes up. It doesn't mean they have to bend over backward to make sure you are progressing forward in your professional career or even have to care if you progress.
Don't confuse the privilege of an employer's care as a right. I'm not saying I wouldn't care about the professional development of employees but we need to not confuse privileges with rights and ethical obligations with mandatory requirements. Remember they are not the same on BOTH accounts.
I've got no idea what the government is like in Korea. Yet, there are those here in the US who are absolutely paranoid about 'public accountability'; So everything is documented in full. Word for word, every email, every little single piece of correspondence goes into a file 'in case' someone ever wants to go through it all to prove some corruption or whatever.
From the architects side, I can remember doing this. Sure you can use voice recognition software, but you can't bill that easily as X many hours of administration time. Their paranoia cost them, and the taxpayers, lots of money. Dictation is my preferred way because of what the person doing this can learn.
Learn? You get to know exactly what goes on in these meetings and have that exposure. You get to see how upper management handles difficult clients. You can ponder over the things said and maybe start understanding the longer goals and foresight of negotiation. You can pick up on the subtleties of language, mood shifts, and key things that can pacify or enrage a client. The more you hear and do this, the better able you'll be to understand how you might be able to control a meeting, set the tone, and handle totally different and unique people.
My depositions are always word for word and I review the other depositions... You can learn wonderful things from a good well-prepared trail attorney. You'll discover how they use leading questions and arguments only to later haul them back around to challenge their target to approach their answers using a separate perspective (because the prior questions and directions shifted their thinking to other angles). It's the magic of communication, how to argue, and how to negotiate in your favor.
Basically, use this as a learning tool to gain a greater understanding of people and directing the conversations. Think about how the speaker may have made errors or what they could have done to shift the mood. Then apply it to your own Machiavellianism demons. Plus your typing speed will vastly improve. :P
where did you learn this stuff R?
Richard is technically correct. Anything you do for an employee is a privilege and not the employee right as long as it stays out of the outright abuse realm. The taste of that sandwich though put so bluntly is unpalatable. An employee doesn’t want to think like that at all. Enter dynamics and negotiation.
The art of negotiation is not taught in schools. If taught, they typically do it wrong where the belief is sound reason and rationalism will win an argument like a stupid debate club. It can… but most people make choices and form opinion based on an emotional reward and value system IF they want to come out of it feeling good about those decisions. That is what you want people to feel. Rational factual based choices don’t carry that extra emotional attachment or ownership and often are received as unpalatable like Richards factual argument. That affects your relationship with that person.
It is a dark art. Every meeting you will have is a negotiation; you want ‘this’ to happen, and it is up to you to get them to want it too. That’s the machiavelliansm at play; not necessarily to deceive, but to alter the subject’s perception into agreement where they may even think it was their idea and are on board and happy with that choice.
You really don’t have to lie. An example might be leading a discussion into code intent, thus shifting their head from ‘letter of the code’ to ‘intent of the code’ before popping the question about a certain variance. Essentially you are leading them to the mental place they need to be to make that choice that feels right. In my prior post, I attempted to shift from a necessary and totally sucky job task into an opportunity to learn by shifting the perception and approaching the task with a different perspective.
Architecture is a a great hobby but a horrible career, look at what your bosses are doing and you will see even the managers jobs are menial, boring and low payed. Get a day job doing something else, it will be just as boring but higher paid and you will have more free time to invest in architecture as a hobby.
mightyaa,
Great addition to the point because reality of our rights is a sh-t sandwich that leaves an unpalatable taste due to our aspiration to be leaders and making the decisions vs. being a subordinate to someone else. Pride doesn't change the facts of reality but the added point of our social relationship with our employers goes along ways to negotiating the environment of the work place environment that is palatable.
There are practical reasons that employers should strive to have good relationships with their employees and vice versa and aspire to develop a productive work environment. This much be remembered as a privilege that we should aspire and fight to keep.
Just remember to not cross the line in assuming our privileges are rights guaranteed and protected by the court of law.
The art of persuasion by winning the employer's decision.
I wonder how many architectural firms are employee owned?
quitting and being fired are two sides of the same coin. you can replace shitty employees with shitty employees pretty easy, but it's not as easy to replace good employees with good employees. employees can replace a shitty job with a shitty job fairly easy, but it's hard to replace a good job with a good job. the employer just doesn't have that big of an advantage because they can fire employees, unless what they want to provide is a shitty product with shitty service. if what you want to put in front of your clients is shit because it makes you feel important, then you're probably doing a good job. i suppose that's where you see the difference between a 'right' and a 'privelage.' when it comes down to it, as an employer, you don't have any rights either.
other than that, i have no idea what you're talking about with regard to 'employee rights.' there are obviously actual laws to protect employees in some circumstances, but those laws have nothing to do with the situation the OP described, with what i'm saying, with whatever legal groundwork R is trying to make, or anything else that i can see in this thread. R was the only person trying to make this a legal case, but he hasn't actually produced whatever law it is he's trying to defend. he has explained how the united state constitution applies to a korean working in seol though (which is not within the United State's jurisdiction).
it sounds to me all your saying about negotiation mighty is that you like to be in charge so you'll believe you're more important than you probably are. it's not a lie, it's more like you're leading your thoughts to the conclusion you want to believe.
R, you didn't answer my question. where did you learn your interpretation of law? or are you uncomfortable with that question?
@curtkram
(sorry people for being lazy about reading all the comments-esply the ones from page2..-lol little did i expect this thread to have this comments....)
im probably saying the same thing repeatedly but didn't even jump on to the 'law'level. i just can't understand how the people from other group can so easily toss out their duties to the others like it is so f. natural. -and certainly i don't want to be the benign victim in this capitalist jungle....
it seems to me that the reality at archi firms sucks but im glad that i didn't skip this stage. this happening taught me a lot and helped me have my own perspective/value to take/goals to achieve for the future which i couldn't really have clear image of.
curtkram,
Where did I learn the law,... attorneys and the actual laws and court cases studied over.
Frankly put, the laws would exceed the character limits of the forum posts. since each jurisdiction varies at the word for word level, I'm not going to put my time in posting them.
Rights have to be set forth in law to be a right. If it isn't codified in law, it is not a right. A privilege only elevates to a right after it is codified in law as a right otherwise, it is not a right and therefore not legally protected as a right.
The only human rights is that which is codified in law as a right. If it is not, it is a privilege that is voluntarily defended, provide, protected or otherwise.
Even those so called 'rights' only defined in case laws is merely political or judicial privileges set forth by a judge. Since Judges may not create laws, they can only enforce it. Because a Judge's ruling isn't the law.
Having said that, there are alot of so called 'rights' like 'employee rights' but reality is there isn't that many actual employee rights as there isn't that many actual rights codified in law.
curtkram, I'm not sure how you interpret that I was saying U.S. Constitution applies to a South Korean but I can tell to many of the rights found in the U.S. Constitution, many countries adopted similar provisions into their laws over the years and largely copying the concept of the U.S. Constitution. Alot of which happened over the course of the last 50-100 years as the government of South Korea, in its current form, is like 28 years old and it is the 6th incarnation of the Republic of Korea (South Korea) when it formed in 1948.
In English format,
http://korea.assembly.go.kr/res/low_01_read.jsp?boardid=1000000035
http://korea.assembly.go.kr/res/low_01_read.jsp
In many regards, it is structured and modeled out of the U.S. Constitution and legal system.
so, you have no rights as an employer either right?
you don't have to copy the whole law that grants you the right to own people, but if you have a link from findlaw or something i would appreciate it. the 13th amendment to the constitution (which actually happened, you can read it here) kind of suggests you're wrong.
i would also point you to the US Code, Title 18, Part 1, section 77 which suggest that if i was your employee i would have the right to leave at any time, and if you tried to restrict that right, you could be fined and imprisoned for up to 20 years. it's quite clear in section 1584 that even if you pay to own my mind and body, you cannot hold me to involuntary servitude. section 1589 says you can't force your employees to do anything, and you can't benefit from forced labor. you can't threaten the abuse of law or legal process as a form of intimidation either, which it seems is what you're trying to do here.
you, as an employer, have the same rights i do as an employee of course. i don't have the right to own your mind and body any more than you have the right to own mine.
you can look up the US Code to verify that. see how i based my opinion on things that happen in real life instead of making up a bunch of shit? are you this obtuse in real life, or do you save this special side of yourself for the internets?
My father learned to paper the file and did so religiously because of lawsuits. Most of the time it didn't make any difference.
I take a different path. If that's what is required to do business I pass.
Codified in law. Right. An employee can always quit. However, your quitting doesn't mean you escape sue of breach of contract and damages resulting from you quitting and failing to do the tasks assigned while on duty.
Since the U.S. Constitution is the SUPREME CODIFIED LAW OF THE LAND even above the U.S. Code and any regulation / rule from any department, the 13th amendment sets forth the basis for that very U.S. Code you quoted but lets take a legal analysis look at it....
Ok... authors of this following document has done some leg work:
http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1073&context=facpubs
"Consider two cases. In the first, a farmer finds a disabled man with the intellectual capacity of a twelve-year-old by the side of the road and takes him home. He makes the man work seven days a week for seventeen hours a day. The farmer pays him fifteen dollars a week for a while, but eventually requires that he work for free, providing him with only minimal food, shelter, clothing, and medical care. The farmer isolates the man from any contact with the outside world and subjects him to physical abuse. When the man escapes, the farmer captures him and returns him to work. This continues for twenty years.1 In the second case, a successful college football coach contracts with a university to work for five years in return for a six-figure annual salary. After coaching four seasons, the coach takes a more lucrative offer from a rival school. The first university sues, seeking an order of specific performance requiring the coach to finish out his remaining season.2"
Changing jobs which is quitting or resigning a job to start another. Sure, we know the first example case would be slavery or involuntary servitude... note: INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE is not the same thing as INDENTURED SERVANT or at least not all indentured servitude is involuntary servitude. In the second example clearly highlights a case of contractual obligation. The coach can't just quit to find another job. At least not so fast. He was paid this figure on contractual conditions of a agreed 'performance'.
Every employment requires a performance for a compensation although not always like this "Coach" case which would hold you up.
Since an employee may not harm their employer with intent as that would be an abuse. Abuse is a two way road.
It's late so I'm not clear if the above is written clearly. So, deal with that later.
i thought this thread was about some lazy kid not knowing the importance of taking minutes?
i think theres a glitch in the matrix.
Neo,is that you?
dont make me bend some spoons.
go back to bed.
I am in the matrix, I am going to work like people do in the matrix.
not clear R. I'll wait until you've had a chance to collect your thoughts a bit better.
in the first case, the employer has no rights.
in the second, the footnotes say that was based on this case. gerry dinardo left left vandy for LA State. you tell me, did the coach have to go back to vandy because that university still owned his body and mind? the employer got some money, but they don't have any rights over the body and mind of the coach. when you say "The coach can't just quit to find another job," obvoiusly he can, and he did, but there are financial consequences to that choice.
you point out how involuntary servitude is different that indentured service, but they're still both illegal. that's not a gray area....
while forming a more cohesive comment that explains how you think you have some sort of 'rights' over your employee's body and mind, perhaps you could explain specifically what is in my employment contract, or studior's contract, or fulcrum's contract, which probably doesn't exist because many architects don't have employment contracts, or if it did exist you wouldn't have access to it, that would grant the rights you fallaciously claim to hold.
if you learned about law from a lawyer, they were a bad lawyer. if i were you i would be pissed off at them and send them an angry email. if you learned about law by reading actual laws or by studying cases, show them. i've linked the actual text of the constitution, a specific law (which i didn't link, buy you can google it pretty easy), and a court case to support the fact that you don't have any rights as an employer that i don't also have as an employee. that shows that it isn't hard.
if you threaten your employees with legal action based on this distorted view of the legal system, that's intimidation, and that's illegal.
He's not wrong curtkram. There are very few 'rights' beyond civil protections and the basic human rights stuff based on fair pay - fair work ideals (that are woefully outdated and have massive loopholes). That doesn't mean you can abuse, but that also goes both ways.
and I lol'd at the self important ego bash pointed my direction. It seems to me you'd rather everyone take on a "victim of them" mentality.
"Look how cool it is to paint the white picket fence!" (then getting others to also enjoy it). Would you rather Tom Sawyer sat out there in the heat demonizing those that 'made him' paint the fence or maybe just refuse and take that risk along with those ramifications? We've just got different approaches to life.
And yes, to a certain degree I do feel smarter for it simply because my way got the fence painted and everyone smiling. Your way would end like what exactly? I'm guessing another disgruntled human who is also spreading that negative to anyone in earshot... What a boost to moral it'd be getting everyone whining about their lot in life and focused on what they aren't or don't have. What that is, is the ability to decide what their job task should be: That is what the boss does.
so telling the OP and anyone else who works for a living that they have the right to exercise free will is negative? telling them that they are not owned by people like you and R Balkins is negative, because they should just bend over and let you do what you want? on the other hand, the positive message would be that you manipulate people?
here is some more information on what a positive person you are
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/communication-success/201407/how-recognize-and-handle-manipulative-relationships
aren't you going to start working for other people anyway? my message is that you should be able to do that. it's a positive message to you.
i agree that there are few 'rights' to being an employee, but there are also few 'rights' to being an employer. in fact, you're far more restricted as an employer. the employee typically has more rights, because they don't exercise the undue influence employers are often in a position to exercise. that's how labor laws work.
being in a position of ownership gives you a different set of responsibilities. if you think it's just about getting to go on longer vacations or making money off other people's work, you have no place being in an ownership position because you probably don't understand what it means to be responsible. it's not easy. there are difficult decisions to make and you have to act in the best interest of your company as well as your employees to keep everything running. if you don't want to take on that difficult task, then getting a job for someone else without the expectation of becoming an indentured servant should be a viable option for you.
i'm saying you're not a slave. that is not a negative message.
Indentured servitude isn't entirely illegal. Only when it is involuntary servitude. Even then, involuntary servitude exists as a penalty for crime.
Employment is voluntary servitude. You voluntarily agree (contractually agree) to lease your body & mind in form of labor for compensation. The employer owns that lease on you to extent of terms of contract. The law is about equity, ultimately and restitution of equitable harm or financial damage.
It is that money is tied up and invested in the employee. The more their is tied up and greater the harm resulting from a breach of contract (such as refusal to do work assigned), the more the courts are mandated by law for right an equitable harm and formulate some degree of restitution to the harmed.
Lets take an example, you (employee) are contractually paid $750,000 up front for a 5 year contract of labor of $150,000 a year. You worked only 3 years of the 5 year and decided to quit. You still owe $300,000. That's a clear example of equitable harm because your failure to fulfill the remaining two years is basically theft.
There is a clear basis and reason for financial restitution or fulfillment of contractual obligation by the employee to the employer.
When you work for someone, you are selling essentially a time-share of your body and mind and lease it to the employer. Hence the basis of "market for labor". It's about the equity.
In a contract where you are paid in advance, it is alot easier to see the equitable harm for failing to perform. Even in small low-pay labor there is certain portions of employment taken out and paid in advance on an employee especially in salaried workers.
Wage workers are less likely to have as much direct money tied up and is usually a small amount. When you are paid in advance for performance due, even more the importance that you are required to fulfill or payback what is owed.
Lets say, you signed a contract to be paid in advance $750,000 for a 5 year employment contract (salary positions are often more customized contractual arrangements than wage standard boiler plate employment agreement) but you never showed up to work and ran off. This wanton contractual fraud or theft would obviously amount to criminal theft. So the question is, does an employer have right of restitution for the financial harm? Does the employer have a right for performance for the amount paid for or repayment of what is owed?
employee has a choice? Right... perform, repay back or be arrested and thrown in jail, court seizure of bank account(s) and have amount owed to employer restored.. (however the legal procedure required to arrive at that result).
You can certain quit but you have to fulfill your obligations or pay restitution.
Employment is a form of contractual relationship. Much like an independent contractor relationship, employment relations shares the same principles of contractual obligations.
Whether it is custom contract employment or a general standard employment 'contract', it is still a contract and all contractual relationships have a performance requirement and a compensation requirement. If you are paid any amount that you had not performed and fulfilled then the unearned amount fundamentally must either be fulfilled in order to keep or the unearned amount of money repayed back to the employer.
One way an employer may (depending on specifics of law in the locality) clear small sums of unearned employment and free you from that obligation is to take it out of the final paycheck provided the amount doesn't exceed the amount of final paycheck after taxes and withholdings taken out. Any amount left that exceeds that would still be owed.
It is easier to break away employment if you are not paid in advance. But other factors are also considered when it comes to equity invested on basis of contractual agreements. Of course there has to be a financial harm as that burden of proof is with the employer to show before court of law.
curtkram,
you can exercise free will to an extent. But place of employment is not a democracy. When you are being paid to work, you are to work otherwise, you must not claim those hours because an employer doesn't hire you for your opinion unless they ask for it or that is your assignment to do from which you paid for. Otherwise, your opinion belongs outside the place of employment when you are "OFF THE CLOCK". When you are "ON THE CLOCK", you know what that means... right...... your time is being paid for in 15 minute or 1-hour blocks or otherwise.
Employment is like serving in military. After all, serving in military is employment as well. It's very much in common and share many of the same characteristics. There is a chain of command. It's not a democracy. You ask permission to speak freely otherwise you hold your peace. You can be discharged (terminated employment) honorably or dishonorably (ie. in good accord or in bad. ). Your job is to do what you are told to do. You can quit, of course.
It's the 'corporate' life which military and businesses commonly structured around to establish order out of chaos.
Otherwise, you are taking the employers money without earning those hours. If your opinion is not asked for or otherwise part of the assignment as set forth, discussing your opinion while refusing to do the work... on your employer's dime (ie. when you are on the clock and being paid for) is basically financial theft because you are basically taking your employer's money and not doing the work assigned and that is technically unearned hours and unearned pay.
Some employers may encourage more feedback and that's a privilege.
Employees should not assume that they are permitted to speak freely in a place of employment. The Bill of Rights itself is protection from government restricting your rights as a citizen. Citizens are free to speak freely in public lands (places of business is actually private lands, like a person's home, even though it may have public accommodation.) Like a home, a place of business is open to free speech as the owner/business owner permits.
Your freedom of speech essentially ends at the public right of way/public lands & your own home or other properties you own. When you are in some other person's home of place of business, you are basically a guest in their domain. their rules. Basically, 'house rules' so to speak. The point is even employees needs to respect the rules of the owner as guests as it is a privilege to be there because you do not have a right to be there. You have a privilege to be there because it is revocable. Granted, employers may have to honor the privilege they offer to an extent. Employees have to be able to arrive and enter the premises of the place of employment. Employers have to honor that and honor access to areas they make available for employee as long as the employee is an employee. Common sense... right. But it is still a privilege, ultimately, because employment is a privilege. Employee has the right to be accommodated to extent of being able to fulfill work being assigned. This is not without limits, either. All this employee rights hinges on the privilege of being an employee.
So honor thy employer for thy employer is providing a privilege of employment for compensation.
The flip side is an employer should respect their employees within reasonable extent. That leaves into another post.
Careful, Richard. You're going to crash the server.
Employees do not have right to the profits (unless that is set forth in contractual agreement). Owners/Employers owns the intellectual property rights. Owner/Employers owns the assets. Granted, they are in a higher level of responsibility, they have the right to lead. Employees do not. Employees do not, although an employee can quit and become set up their own business. However, employers have the RIGHT to set forth the rules and laws, a right of all people in their own domain. Like a home owner's right. Property owner's rights. Employers are often that. They maybe privilege many privileges from the owner of the building in the case of land lord / tenant arrangement but the employee is not a privy of contract to the land lord. But the business owner has the privileges to set forth rules (within the rental/lease agreement with the land lord) to set order and structure. Employees do not unless set forth and privilege casted down and ultimately approved and not 'vetoed' by the business owners/employers.
But employee rights although has a lower standard of responsibility entirely exists on the foundation of a privilege that is often easily revocable. To be an employee or not be. (That's the question to ponder in mind.) Keep that mind when employers has this question in their heads.... to keep an employee or not to keep.
Don't forget the case laws and definitions set forth from the Colonial laws and cases which still holds premise in interpreting legal code of federal law and the U.S. Constitution as they still have applications to defining the rights of people in the United States.
This thing called... hiring and firing/layoff/termination of employment.
For other countries, historic context must be followed through according to each country and the context behind the meaning of those laws as they were adopted and their precepts that informs the underlying meaning of the words and phrases used in the law. Just like we do here in the U.S.
The psycho babble bull is full of awesome. From the article:
Most manipulative individuals have four common characteristics:
Hmm. You have a design you like best and present to a client. You know what they want and value the most. Through your ‘shrewd machination’ you tout how well that design you like best fits their wants. You “exploit” your knowledge of them they shared with you. You know they have a weakness for that curb appeal and image the building would project publically using whatever architectural style preference they seem to value. I can’t believe you of all people would use your intimate knowledge of them to manipulate their choice. How awful of you!
Someone should tell them to fire you immediately because you are exploiting what they like to get your way!
Or expand it… you know they are ‘weak’ on how much they can spend. You designed just outside their spoken budget, but know they could afford this but are hesitant. Don’t you sell the concept first to get them excited before breaking that bad news that they’ll have to dig a bit deeper? Don’t you present negative ramifications to the design they now love IF they don’t ante up?
Again… totally abusive relationship right?
Just because it’s raining outside doesn’t mean you live in a tropical climate. Mental illness are based on normal behaviors that just fall outside the normal bell curve of tolerance. A baby will manipulate you for attention by crying; it is not hurt or hungry. As it grows it refines that ability as it learns you… So by 3, they can flash those puppy dog eyes and get that extra cookie. Human nature.
Normal behavior of any living creature, it will do whatever to get what it wants.
It can even be a dog. Dogs do it. Humans do it. Natural behavior. So what's insane is being what you are not. That is being non-natural life form. Human societies have been striving to be different and not natural by these societal ethics to elevate ourselves on a metaphorical pedestal.
Kind of ironic, isn't it that it is the nature of being an architect serving our clients while serving our own interests in the process that they teach you in architecture school to some extent and in professional life is taught. Wow... we must be abusive scumbags.
R., that was 1,631 words and you can't provide a single link to a law or a court case to support your opinion.
so what you have is an opinion, based on what you want the world to be like rather than what's actually like, and you seem to think that if you use more words that will start to make you more relevant?
hopefully the archinect lawyer will tell us what ownership rights a person has over other people. then you can publicly apologize.
In Oregon, I have the right to shoot a tresspasser. What law or court case do I need to quote. After all,the right to protect ones properties from theft. It's in the federal law, parts in the U.S. Constitution, additional parts in every court proceeding ever. If we didn't have a right to protect and defend properties be it through any means under law, it should be clear from the get go, if you didn't have the right to protect or lawfully acquire restitution for theft or other harms, there wouldn't be a single court or lawsuit. Duh!
If I paid you to do something and you took the money and didn't do it, then you committed theft.
When you are hired to work and don't do it, you are stealing from the company. It is essentially a financial theft because you are being paid for the time employed "on the clock".
When you are not doing what you are told while on the clock, you are wasting time to make your number of labor hours spent increase to get paid more money. That is essentially a form of embezzlement which is a form of theft. although in such small numbers it is not usually referred to under the wording 'embezzlement' but it basically is. Mechanically, it is theft of employer's money when you refuse to do your assigned tasks, deliberately taking your sweet ass time or otherwise doing something willfully wrong to your employer to take advantage of him or her by not performing accordingly just to get more money out of the employer. It is technically a form of theft and theft is generally a criminal act with jail time as a sentence.
Taking money you haven't rightfully earned without fulfilling it or paying pack the unearned portion of the money according to the contractual agreement in a timely manner is theft.
It can rise to a criminal level where you can go to jail, and possibly fined at the same time. I don't think I need to quote the laws and statutes of theft, robbery, embezzlement, etc. It's in the statutes of every state in the U.S.
I somewhat simplified it and surely not every little nuance is going to result in sympathy of a court.
However, I'm not saying it is worth an employer's time to sue someone because they refuse to do something for 5 minutes. If they refuse to do something, you can just fire them if they continue to refuse after 15 minutes. Under most employment situation, the loss is minimal financially. It just means task is reassigned to someone else.. usually a fixed rate salaried worker where overtime pay doesn't apply to them.
what you believe to be the legal framework surrounding employment doesn't exist.
The Digital Underground post caught my attention.........Richard can you say all that in a haiku?
curtkram,
LOL! Get sued. Find out. Case law is founded in the legal framework. You heard of case precedence. There is a sh-t load of them, go to your local court house and did through the database. You generally can not access the database from a remote computer with committing a cyber crime to do so.
Not going to do that for you.
One thing is, a business is private personal property of its owner including the money. Contract law is a legal frame work and also applies to employment as all employment relationship is a form of contractual relationship.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/written-employment-contracts-pros-cons-30193.html
A link worth looking at as it is easier to process than state by state links to a whole range of statutes and administrative rules. You can look them up yourself. Note: remember in contract law, it doesn't have to be written. Most employment is not entirely a written contract but a part verbal and part written documentation especially in an employment at will arrangement.
You sign an offer letter and sometimes also a handbook acknowledgement or both or some combination where you sign an agreement that describes some of the duties your position maybe assigned but almost always includes a clause of 'not limited to' and terms like ' ... any other tasks the supervisor/employer may assign.'
In addition, it informs you in the offer that you are paid $ ____ per hour or $_______ yearly or monthly salary. It will say whether or not the position is full time or not such as " employee will work up to 40 hours a week and maybe requested to work additional hours by the supervisor/employer at the request of the supervisor/employer.
One thing about contract law is the contract itself *IS* the codified legal framework beyond the codified public law. Often key elements are put in writing. Especially a position that is paid more than minimum wage.
This is especially more true with positions that requires a degree.
Remember that job offer you signed or handbook acknowledgement you signed and the verbal part of the interview or job offer. Alot of times, they have certain things written.
With at-will employment, you can quit anytime. Largely the article is about custom written contracts... basically a negotiated written contract employment vs. a conventional at-will employment contract which is much more loose in terms but it is a contract nonetheless. It is just that is is more one-way than a 'negotiated written employment contract' or basically written contracts are in the context of what the article is largely about.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/employment-at-will-definition-30022.html
Keep in mind, employment is a form of contractual relationship.
Of course, to retain the arrangement is an at-will employment, employer needs to choose his words wisely to not fall out of bounds. It is best not to state reasons for being fired unless it is clear there are certain actions that would likely result in termination of employment and that it is clear that those are not the only reasons one maybe terminated from employment.
However, with at-will employment, you can be terminated without good cause and it doesn't have to be stated why unless ordered by court to disclose reason. By the time, you can even see the light of day of a court hearing even 'greenlighted', the employer can have a legally compliant reason put together. If you piss off the boss and disrespect the boss's authority as employer, the boss can fire you and there is no recourse except if it actually violates law having jurisdiction.
You'll find that is quite a common form of employment in architecture that interns will typically have.
There are some rights from retaliation by complaining about some safety issue or otherwise reasons that codified public law may provide as protection against termination.
Aside from the few rights of being terminated in an unlawful manner under law, in at-will employment, you can be fired for next to anything and refusing to do your job is one area that will often be a basis an employer may terminate your employment.
In addition, at-will employment often have loose and open ended job duties requirements because every employee that would be hired for such positions will be assigned whatever task that comes about because someone has to do it and employers retains the power to assign duties and task assignments to whomever he/she decides.
Therefore, at-will employment typically are the most flexible in job duties the employer maybe able to assign because these employees will be doing whatever needs to be done (lawfully of course). End of story.
Employee quips about doing the task... Bye bye employee. Welcome new employee.
Olaf,
I don't do haiku very often so I don't know. Honestly.
Try it......you almost sounded the like the most interesting man in the world.......I don't drink beer often but when I do it is Dos XX's.
it's not a contract
you are absolutely wrong
i hope to get sued.
learn more labor law
there is a long history
you can do better
ba yuddy!
it is a contract
sorry for the confusion
i have been drinking
still, that doesn't change
the fact that you are very
wrong and mistaken
rollin'
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.