| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
OT Civil service, was Am Cup
On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 23:08:38 -0500, wrote:
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. I never said it was easy. Heck, it's not easy to fire a corporate worker. Even corp. layoffs can invoke a lawsuit if it's not handled properly. So, if CEOs aren't hard to get rid of, how come it takes forever, and they end up running the company into the ground even though it's obvious that they did that. They still get their bonuses, no problem. Then, maybe they take their parachute and go sailing.... um... like BP's guy??? |
|
#3
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Civil service, was Am Cup
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 02:01:38 -0500, wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 21:59:00 -0800, wrote: On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 23:08:38 -0500, wrote: 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. I never said it was easy. Heck, it's not easy to fire a corporate worker. Even corp. layoffs can invoke a lawsuit if it's not handled properly. 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. All you really need to do is write someone up twice and you can fire them "with cause" on the 3d infraction. (take your stuff and go) There are a number of infractions that are considered a condition of employment and you can fire you on strike one. Even IBM in the northern states could let you go with 2 weeks notice and pay your severance. That could be as small as 2 weeks pay up to 6 months (one week for every year you worked there up to 26) Even that was just a handshake deal. It was not a contract ... as a lot of people found out in the 90s. If they rolled you into early retirement, you didn't get anything not even unemployment. You better be ready to live on about 40% of your salary. When my wife got laid off she got the "good" severance package (about 3 months base pay) and no notice. Basically she got called into the office "Turn in your phone, Palm Pilot, ID card and go home now". Six months later the people who got laid off got the same treatment and 2 weeks pay. If you are a trade, they just say, "we don't need you tomorrow". So, if CEOs aren't hard to get rid of, how come it takes forever, and they end up running the company into the ground even though it's obvious that they did that. They still get their bonuses, no problem. Then, maybe they take their parachute and go sailing.... um... like BP's guy??? Exactly like Hayward. What did it take? 2-3 weeks? You think he doesn't work for BP? Think again.. http://www.usatoday.com/money/topsto...63110359_x.htm When they decide to dump a CEO the board can have security carry their stuff out in a box but the terms of their contract will probably cost the company millions. We are not talking about CEOs tho. The government equivalent of that is an appointed position, not Civil Service and those guys serve at the pleasure of the president. One bad joke can send them packing off to the private sector where they triple their salary. |
|
#4
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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) |
|
#5
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT Civil service, was Am Cup
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. |
|
#6
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| SAn Francisco CG training | General | |||
| Fleetweek San Francisco | General | |||
| Sailboat7 san francisco ca 110289 | Tall Ship Photos | |||
| Sailboat6 san francisco ca 110289 | Tall Ship Photos | |||
| Sailboat5 san francisco 110289 | Tall Ship Photos | |||
Hybrid Mode
