USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs
- Thread starter FadeToBlack&Gold
- Start date
- Status
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs
Here is what I don't like about the temp-to-hire method, especially in an at-will state. As you pointed out, a lot of places run the temp period for 90 days. Once the employee passes that 90 days, there seems to be an implicit message that they have achieved some sort of permanent or protected status. Almost like it's tenure, or that they can't be fired except for cause. But in an at-will state, that's not the case. There is literally no difference in their legal status between day 89 and day 91, even though the employee thinks there is.
Second, I think it's a joke that people think that in 90 days you can figure out if someone can and will do the job as you have a right to expect them to do. 90 days is nothing.
Here is what I don't like about the temp-to-hire method, especially in an at-will state. As you pointed out, a lot of places run the temp period for 90 days. Once the employee passes that 90 days, there seems to be an implicit message that they have achieved some sort of permanent or protected status. Almost like it's tenure, or that they can't be fired except for cause. But in an at-will state, that's not the case. There is literally no difference in their legal status between day 89 and day 91, even though the employee thinks there is.
Second, I think it's a joke that people think that in 90 days you can figure out if someone can and will do the job as you have a right to expect them to do. 90 days is nothing.
rufus
rock and roller
Freedumz!!!!!
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs
This is the argument that you should be able to pump as much smog into the air and filth into the water as you want because it's your business.
We got over that 50 years ago. Try to keep up. A business has certain responsibilities. Some of those responsibilities should extend to the people who work for you. If that's too much for your poor, fragile shoulders to bear, don't go into business.
John Galt can eat a bag of dicks. That ship sailed long ago. Not my fault that there are still atavists who cling to it.
This is the argument that you should be able to pump as much smog into the air and filth into the water as you want because it's your business.
We got over that 50 years ago. Try to keep up. A business has certain responsibilities. Some of those responsibilities should extend to the people who work for you. If that's too much for your poor, fragile shoulders to bear, don't go into business.
John Galt can eat a bag of dicks. That ship sailed long ago. Not my fault that there are still atavists who cling to it.
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs
Pollution, etc..., is a completely different animal.
Employment is just work for hire. I have something I want done. I'm willing to pay you to do it. You're interested in doing it.
If I don't want to continue that relationship, why should I have to? You don't have to. This is not a marriage where we vowed to be tied together for better or for worse. Even in marriage now, in many places, you don't have to show cause.
You guys are all hung up on the stigma of "being fired" or the economic consequences of the work no longer there.
Pollution, etc..., is a completely different animal.
Employment is just work for hire. I have something I want done. I'm willing to pay you to do it. You're interested in doing it.
If I don't want to continue that relationship, why should I have to? You don't have to. This is not a marriage where we vowed to be tied together for better or for worse. Even in marriage now, in many places, you don't have to show cause.
You guys are all hung up on the stigma of "being fired" or the economic consequences of the work no longer there.
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs
Well, that should cost him Michigan this time around, even though it was already trending that way.
Well, that should cost him Michigan this time around, even though it was already trending that way.
Jimjamesak
Already insane, UAA making it worse
Profit.
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs
Also, contract employment is often a scam used to flog someone for 6-12 months without having to give them any benefits, then dump them regardless of actual performance. There are 2-3 contract positions like that from firms and the state gov't here in Michigan that I always see posted on the job boards, and I know it's because that's what they are doing, and that practice is exactly why they tend to get lower quality candidates now that the word is out.
Anyway, isn't this the SCOTUS thread?
Also, contract employment is often a scam used to flog someone for 6-12 months without having to give them any benefits, then dump them regardless of actual performance. There are 2-3 contract positions like that from firms and the state gov't here in Michigan that I always see posted on the job boards, and I know it's because that's what they are doing, and that practice is exactly why they tend to get lower quality candidates now that the word is out.
Anyway, isn't this the SCOTUS thread?
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs
So you don't see employment rules protecting people just like pollution rules?
By your logic, if people are willing to work for it, I should be able to give them low pay. And I should be able to hire children at low pay as well. And if they get cranky in the morning, I should be able to replace them by the afternoon.
Yes, that's an extreme example, but it is.
What you don't see is that by letting a business fire for no reason, you then harm the employee- they lose the ability to pay for food, shelter, etc.
How can you just gloss over the economic implications of just firing someone for no reason? That's a pretty big deal for people, it's like the most stressful thing to people, especially ones surviving from paycheck to paycheck.
Regulations are 100% because people and businesses can not behave themselves, and their lack of behavior harms something (people, environment, animals, etc). Thus the regulations around not firing someone.
You really come across as someone who is totally out of touch with the reality of many people.
So you don't see employment rules protecting people just like pollution rules?
By your logic, if people are willing to work for it, I should be able to give them low pay. And I should be able to hire children at low pay as well. And if they get cranky in the morning, I should be able to replace them by the afternoon.
Yes, that's an extreme example, but it is.
What you don't see is that by letting a business fire for no reason, you then harm the employee- they lose the ability to pay for food, shelter, etc.
How can you just gloss over the economic implications of just firing someone for no reason? That's a pretty big deal for people, it's like the most stressful thing to people, especially ones surviving from paycheck to paycheck.
Regulations are 100% because people and businesses can not behave themselves, and their lack of behavior harms something (people, environment, animals, etc). Thus the regulations around not firing someone.
You really come across as someone who is totally out of touch with the reality of many people.
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs
I would say you should be clear about what constitutes a dismissal from the job. I see this a lot in the local paper (the Boston Globe) which is completely in with the legal pot industry so every week they print a sob story about some toker who got canned for failing a drug test due to recreational marijuana usage. My take is if you were told ahead of time that drug usage was grounds for being fired on the spot don't use drugs. A friend of mine had a similar situation when he worked for Baylor U. He was told point blank that if he was seen consuming alcohol, even on his own time at a restaurant in town, he'd be out of a job. However, its extremely unfair to have a secret "no red tennis shoes" policy to use your example, not tell anybody about it, and then shi tcan someone when they show up for work with them.
I would say you should be clear about what constitutes a dismissal from the job. I see this a lot in the local paper (the Boston Globe) which is completely in with the legal pot industry so every week they print a sob story about some toker who got canned for failing a drug test due to recreational marijuana usage. My take is if you were told ahead of time that drug usage was grounds for being fired on the spot don't use drugs. A friend of mine had a similar situation when he worked for Baylor U. He was told point blank that if he was seen consuming alcohol, even on his own time at a restaurant in town, he'd be out of a job. However, its extremely unfair to have a secret "no red tennis shoes" policy to use your example, not tell anybody about it, and then shi tcan someone when they show up for work with them.
unofan
Well-known member
100% of government regulations are because someone, somewhere, did something that caused government to create that law or rule. The problem is 100% caused by snake oil salesmen, used car salesmen, and their ilk trying to twist every little thing their way.
RaceBoarder
Waiting for the Snow to fly...
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs
If you want to see employee exploitation, all you need to do is go down to your local "big box" retailer.
At my location we've had a ton of firings. Some are 100% legit: repeated No Call/No Show, "Hard" drug use, "Hand in the till", product theft/scams.
But at the same time there is a 6 year employee who is a functional alcoholic and EVERYONE in the building except 4 of the 6 managers knows this. They keep turning a blind eye to it. One manager just doesn't want to deal with ANYTHING like this so he plays 250% dumb with issues like this. Another manager has called this employee out before, but was quickly told to not bring up the issue again (and the reason she was told to let it ride was because of some other high profile firings due to the "hard" drug use and senior management knew that another firing might show that they are allowing chaos in the workplace
).
But while this was occurring, there was another employee who would call management out on B.S. mentioned above. They would do the job well and get stuff done. They were just a "fly in the ointment" to management. That employee was fired for using the F-word several times in a conversation with another employee and creating a "hostile work environment". For the record, we speak in "soft R-rated language" amongst each other all the time. Managers know this and hadn't said a word for years until this employee was let go. But since then, it's been a point of emphasis. And ironically, EVERYONE in the *darn* store has F-wordED UP in following said policy
Point of this is that if an employer wants you to go, they can fabricate whatever they need to in order to get the result they want. That's why employee handbooks read like a legal document. You might do A, B, and C that boss doesn't like, but they can't touch you for. But buried in the handbook is Offense T that never comes about and no one enforces/knows. And all of a sudden here comes a crucifixion for T...
If you want to see employee exploitation, all you need to do is go down to your local "big box" retailer.
At my location we've had a ton of firings. Some are 100% legit: repeated No Call/No Show, "Hard" drug use, "Hand in the till", product theft/scams.
But at the same time there is a 6 year employee who is a functional alcoholic and EVERYONE in the building except 4 of the 6 managers knows this. They keep turning a blind eye to it. One manager just doesn't want to deal with ANYTHING like this so he plays 250% dumb with issues like this. Another manager has called this employee out before, but was quickly told to not bring up the issue again (and the reason she was told to let it ride was because of some other high profile firings due to the "hard" drug use and senior management knew that another firing might show that they are allowing chaos in the workplace
). But while this was occurring, there was another employee who would call management out on B.S. mentioned above. They would do the job well and get stuff done. They were just a "fly in the ointment" to management. That employee was fired for using the F-word several times in a conversation with another employee and creating a "hostile work environment". For the record, we speak in "soft R-rated language" amongst each other all the time. Managers know this and hadn't said a word for years until this employee was let go. But since then, it's been a point of emphasis. And ironically, EVERYONE in the *darn* store has F-wordED UP in following said policy
Point of this is that if an employer wants you to go, they can fabricate whatever they need to in order to get the result they want. That's why employee handbooks read like a legal document. You might do A, B, and C that boss doesn't like, but they can't touch you for. But buried in the handbook is Offense T that never comes about and no one enforces/knows. And all of a sudden here comes a crucifixion for T...
Last edited:
Jimjamesak
Already insane, UAA making it worse
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs
That’s the kind of stuff that makes me say “that’s what unions are for.”
If they tried that at my work that employee would be back the next day. Even drug/alcohol issues require an opportunity to go to rehab before anything. If there’s one thing that’s backwards it’s the anti-union myth of “they keep bad employees around”, no bad management too lazy to actually keep track of things keeps bad employees around.
If you really want to see how an employer feels about you try reporting an injury, even in a union workplace it’s an ordeal, I shudder to think what it’s like elsewhere.
That’s the kind of stuff that makes me say “that’s what unions are for.”
If they tried that at my work that employee would be back the next day. Even drug/alcohol issues require an opportunity to go to rehab before anything. If there’s one thing that’s backwards it’s the anti-union myth of “they keep bad employees around”, no bad management too lazy to actually keep track of things keeps bad employees around.
If you really want to see how an employer feels about you try reporting an injury, even in a union workplace it’s an ordeal, I shudder to think what it’s like elsewhere.
RaceBoarder
Waiting for the Snow to fly...
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs
Agreed. Unfortunately there isn't a single "big box" that will allow the word "union" to even be mentioned. Also, many employees just accept it. The phrase "It's retail." along with a shrugging of your shoulders is a common answer to any and all problems.
Agreed. Unfortunately there isn't a single "big box" that will allow the word "union" to even be mentioned. Also, many employees just accept it. The phrase "It's retail." along with a shrugging of your shoulders is a common answer to any and all problems.
MissThundercat
Are the cis okay?
Meijer is union with UFCW.
RaceBoarder
Waiting for the Snow to fly...
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs
Was not aware of that. Sporting Goods & Outdoors retail are all non-union.
Was not aware of that. Sporting Goods & Outdoors retail are all non-union.
Spartanforlife4
Generic Catchy Message
From what I’ve heard from a couple Meijer workers, it’s started trending more towards Walmart-lite since Fred died, despite being union. Still infinitely better than Walmart, but not what it once was.
Kroger is also union.
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs
Yep, even when I worked there as a 17 year-old I paid dues out of every measly part-time check I made.
Payroll cards were still unregulated though, and they definitely pushed us to get paid on Meijer debit cards.
I hated working there though, lots of sh*tty grunt work for only slightly more than minimum wage due to my prior work experience. I never should've left Arby's at the time.
Yep, even when I worked there as a 17 year-old I paid dues out of every measly part-time check I made.
Payroll cards were still unregulated though, and they definitely pushed us to get paid on Meijer debit cards.
I hated working there though, lots of sh*tty grunt work for only slightly more than minimum wage due to my prior work experience. I never should've left Arby's at the time.
- Status