|
OT Civil service, was Am Cup
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 10:38:05 -0500, wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 23:54:27 -0800, wrote: It is clear you have never worked in a right to work state. All they need to do is say they don't need you anymore and tell you to stop coming in. The worst case is they have to pay your unemployment if they can't make a "with cause" case. (basically 3 strikes will do it) I've only worked in Cali. It's only ranked #1 in population, so it must be an exception. It's at-will employment, and firing someone without cause can get you in trouble. Most of the rest of the country is not that way, Are you really trying to say there were no layoffs in California? Most states are employment-at-will states. Before going further, you should read the following, which is pretty good summary. http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...t_to_work.html As for "cause", it usually only required having the right documentation. You give them a written warning, then you put them on written notice, on the 3d strike you can fire them. That was even true in the old 60s "big family" IBM. For most jobs in a right to work state you can just fire someone if you don't like their face. The only issue is whether you have to pay the unemployment. (your tax rate is based on how many people you lay off without cause) |
OT Civil service, was Am Cup
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 08:11:28 -0500, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 19:41:08 -0800, wrote: And the goal posts move again. I guess you are done. I haven't changed one millimeter from what I originally said. Look it up. You have moved from how easy it was to fire a civil service worker to how hard it is supposed to be to fire a private industry worker (there are about 15 million of them who would disagree) and ended up at how hard it is to get rid of a CEO. CEOs aren't even that hard to get rid of. Most don't last 5 years, particularly if they can't keep up the stock price. They just get a better buyout than the rest of us. dePlume is an idiot. She doesn't understand the concept of at will employment. For someone who is supposed lawyer she doesn't understand the basic concepts of contracts or contract law. Yes, that's your solution when you don't understand something isn't it... just call someone a name. You're such a mature guy. I bet you fit right in with the crazies with whom you hang out. |
OT Civil service, was Am Cup
YukonBound wrote:
"John H" wrote in message ... On Sun, 9 Jan 2011 10:30:06 -0500, Spoofer wrote: In article , says... wrote in message ... On Sat, 08 Jan 2011 11:40:10 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 18:17:09 -0800, wrote: On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 19:07:48 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 15:22:26 -0800, wrote: You are again just finding cases where people lost their desks and it goes into great detail explaining how they got relocated. You claimed that federal workers don't get fired. I provided numerous examples. Sorry if you can't handle it. Go back and read my original note again. I said they can't get fired as long as they show up for work and they don't get caught stealing. You gave us one example of the PATA guys being fired for not showing up at work. It is a violation of the law that allows a federal union for the members to strike. That is black letter law. They should have all been fired. There may even be criminal penalties attached. The rest of your links only talked about the extraordinary lengths they go to relocate people when their agency closes. You also linked articles about the shutdowns and they all ended up with everyone keeping their jobs. I suppose you could say the Walkers got fired but they stole national secrets. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...mcain-federal/ Exactly, you posted an article that said what I have been saying. A few people got fired for coming in drunk and punching out the boss. That is not a layoff, that is a criminal act. http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=35&sid=1995749 Losing their security clearance http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...-blowers_x.htm Stealing and disclosing confidential information. You seem to think that it's an uncommon private business practice to not attempt to place workers in other jobs. Big companies do this all the time. While it's more difficult to fire Fed employees, it's not impossible. Please show us some numbers that support all the "incompetence" of Fed workers. Seems to me they mostly do a good job. Most federal employees do try to do a good job, the point is it is hard to get rid of the ones who don't. The first article in this post demonstrates that. Getting fired for being drunk and punching the boss is not the same as just being lazy and not working. I agree that is a fairly small percentage but seeing that lowers the morale of the rest of the work force and lowers overall productivity. Yes, it's hard. No, it's not impossible to fire a Fed employee. It's just as high of a percentage in the corporate world. In fact, it might even be worse there. Laziness typically lowers morale and productivity, but that's not unique to Fed workers. Large companies have the same problem. Damn straight! Just go ask Scotties former employers. Another post from you with nothing in it but stupidity. I suppose he meant to say 'Scotty's' and will probably say that 'Scotties' was just a 'typo'. Right. He's filterable, BTW. Hey... did you read that thread where the poster claimed the only people interested in his sporty Chrysler/Dodge were 13 year old boys. Same true for a yellow Mustang? Your jealousy is painfully obvious, dummy. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:35 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com