RANT: All the Issues are My Fault and You Won't Answer My Questions
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
For for reference, if Staples just uses your name and theirs, checking via Duck Duck Go, your Spiceworks and MangoLassi (and some other) hits that are you and Staples together come right up. You are surviving simply on the fact that they are not looking to see what their employees are saying, not that any effort would not tie it together.
And spiceworks people keep coming here just to see this stuff. Look at how many views these types of your topics get. and someone over on spiceworks posted some screenshots of this thread elsewhere online. Chances of this stuff getting see by an employer get higher and higher each time you do it.
Most of us are trying to help, but obviously there are those that just come here to see the crash and burn.
I appreciate that. I have a really easy time empathizing with others' pain, whether physical, emotional or mental. However, I have a very hard time empathizing with how other people interpret what I say. I'm working on that but it's a real struggle for me.
The most important part is to stop saying it. You have recognized that you can't tell how others will see it. Now, how do you action that knowledge in a good way? You avoid the behaviour until you can determine what is safe or not.
Think about it this way, what if you can't tell if the range top is hot? Do you put your hand on it and get burned sometimes? Or do you stop putting your hand on it at all until you figure out how to determine if it is hot or not?
When it doubt, avoid. Play it safe.
The other part of my problem is my own way of viewing myself. If you ever talked to me in person, I could give a more accurate demonstration, but I'm a world-class liar. I know exactly how to work it so that I can make a person totally believe one thing without actually lying most of the time. The devil is in the details. So the odd part is that, while I'm quite amazing at this, I also detest lying. In fact, I think it's pretty obvious I often are a little too honest. The biggest reason I do this has nothing to do with anyone else, but has to do with the fact that it's a coping mechanism for me. I don't do well keeping stuff bottled up. I'd much rather put everything out there and deal with the consequences than keep whatever it might be bottled up. Now the consequences at times are pretty severe, and most people would think I'm nuts. But to me, dealing with that is STILL easier than the feeling and anxiety I get keeping it bottled up. The trick I need to figure out is just knowing when to release that info/those feelings, etc.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
In fact, I think it's pretty obvious I often are a little too honest.
No, you are too transparent. Not the same thing at all.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
For for reference, if Staples just uses your name and theirs, checking via Duck Duck Go, your Spiceworks and MangoLassi (and some other) hits that are you and Staples together come right up. You are surviving simply on the fact that they are not looking to see what their employees are saying, not that any effort would not tie it together.
And spiceworks people keep coming here just to see this stuff. Look at how many views these types of your topics get. and someone over on spiceworks posted some screenshots of this thread elsewhere online. Chances of this stuff getting see by an employer get higher and higher each time you do it.
Most of us are trying to help, but obviously there are those that just come here to see the crash and burn.
I appreciate that. I have a really easy time empathizing with others' pain, whether physical, emotional or mental. However, I have a very hard time empathizing with how other people interpret what I say. I'm working on that but it's a real struggle for me.
The most important part is to stop saying it. You have recognized that you can't tell how others will see it. Now, how do you action that knowledge in a good way? You avoid the behaviour until you can determine what is safe or not.
Think about it this way, what if you can't tell if the range top is hot? Do you put your hand on it and get burned sometimes? Or do you stop putting your hand on it at all until you figure out how to determine if it is hot or not?
When it doubt, avoid. Play it safe.
The other part of my problem is my own way of viewing myself. If you ever talked to me in person, I could give a more accurate demonstration, but I'm a world-class liar. I know exactly how to work it so that I can make a person totally believe one thing without actually lying most of the time. The devil is in the details. So the odd part is that, while I'm quite amazing at this, I also detest lying. In fact, I think it's pretty obvious I often are a little too honest. The biggest reason I do this has nothing to do with anyone else, but has to do with the fact that it's a coping mechanism for me. I don't do well keeping stuff bottled up. I'd much rather put everything out there and deal with the consequences than keep whatever it might be bottled up. Now the consequences at times are pretty severe, and most people would think I'm nuts. But to me, dealing with that is STILL easier than the feeling and anxiety I get keeping it bottled up. The trick I need to figure out is just knowing when to release that info/those feelings, etc.
I'm not trying to be a dick by saying this...please keep this in mind.
The problem, though - is that you cause other people anxiety & discomfort by doing this. So what you are accomplishing is projecting your own insecurities and anxiety on other people, forcing them to deal with something that should be handled by yourself & possibly a professional therapist/coach. "If they feel that way, that's their problem." - Sure, but their coping mechanism is either to avoid you altogether or make you feel uncomfortable in return.
People don't want to have to deal with your problems; they have problems and anxieties of their own, why should they cope with yours, too? You don't make it everyone else's responsibility to have to deal with the issues you may have because it makes you feel weird to bottle it up.
You need to find a different way to address this and find an outlet that doesn't negatively impact everyone around you.
-
If you're going to rant about anything questionable, PM someone like me first with what you are going to post. It could save you a ton of trouble.
-
Not being rude or anything here, hmmmkay?
I think that a low tech solution is the best one here.
Next time you are at Staples, go to the office supplies section, buy one of these things and one or more of these things.
Ā
When you get home, use the notepad for writing your rants & feels on. Be explicit if necessary.
This will allow you to get it out in a contained and controlled environment that won't reach your employers or potential employers. You can even burn it when you've filled a whole notepad!
Write everything down in it that makes you want to rant and rave. You may just end up learning from it if you go back and read through it... BEFORE you burn it.
-
Join a gaming group. D&D, Pathfinder, board games, whatever. It helps take some frustration out on the dice/game and you can start to make friends with the people in the group and gauge how much you can trust them. Then you can begin to have some people to confide to in a private manner.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
@tonyshowoff said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@tonyshowoff said:
Staples relies on you to make them money, they're leasing your labour, so if they think you're saying or doing anything to ever...
Or what about trying to take there business: http://community.spiceworks.com/topic/346177-what-to-do
We have a non-compete clause and I'm betting Staples probably does too.
Not for someone at my level. They wouldn't give a damn if tomorrow I quit to go work at GeekSquad. One advantage of being a pee-on in retail. All those professional restrictions most people deal with don't funnel down that far.
Even Jimmy Johns stops their sandwich makers from trying to make a sandwich somewhere else.
I've seen people "at your level" lose their career options from non-competes. There is no "at my level" protection in the US. Not in real terms.
Those non-compete clauses can be nullified. It's all about consideration for a non-compete. If I'm given 6 months severance when I leave a place that's consideration for a non-compete. If it's boilerplate in their contract, like this a*** [moderated] at Jimmy John's did, it will be nullified in court. It can't be overtly broad either, like "You can't work in the IT industry".
At-will has its points in that if I wanted to leave tomorrow, there is nothing my company can do to prevent me from going to one of our competitors. Now, if they offer me money money money if I leave to not work for my competitors, I might take it.
-
@PSX_Defector said:
Those non-compete clauses can be nullified. It's all about consideration for a non-compete. If I'm given 6 months severance when I leave a place that's consideration for a non-compete. If it's boilerplate in their contract, like this a*** [moderated] at Jimmy John's did, it will be nullified in court. It can't be overtly broad either, like "You can't work in the IT industry".
That CAN happen. But my Manhattan attorney that specializes in this said that this is a common myth and can burn people. If you assume this to be true, you are at risk. I was given no such compensation and was still advised to leave the country as my ability to work in 49 states was compromised and could not be reasonably assured. While there was little doubt that I would win after at least a decade of fighting, the chances that my career or finances would survive was approximately zero.
And I know several people who tried this and lost too. So this isn't just speculation, it's real world, really happens. And those people lost their personal savings trying to prove this very thing.
-
@PSX_Defector said:
At-will has its points in that if I wanted to leave tomorrow, there is nothing my company can do to prevent me from going to one of our competitors.
At will does not protect this. Only California protects completely (or nearly so) against this, and they are not at will.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@PSX_Defector said:
At-will has its points in that if I wanted to leave tomorrow, there is nothing my company can do to prevent me from going to one of our competitors.
At will does not protect this. Only California protects completely (or nearly so) against this, and they are not at will.
California is at-will. There are different employment laws in California that make it harder to fire someone for no cause, but it's not not at-will.
There is actually only one state that has anything that can be construed as not at-will and it's Montana.
-
@PSX_Defector said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@PSX_Defector said:
At-will has its points in that if I wanted to leave tomorrow, there is nothing my company can do to prevent me from going to one of our competitors.
At will does not protect this. Only California protects completely (or nearly so) against this, and they are not at will.
California is at-will. There are different employment laws in California that make it harder to fire someone for no cause, but it's not not at-will.
There is actually only one state that has anything that can be construed as not at-will and it's Montana.
If we consider California to be "at will", who is NOT at will?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@PSX_Defector said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@PSX_Defector said:
At-will has its points in that if I wanted to leave tomorrow, there is nothing my company can do to prevent me from going to one of our competitors.
At will does not protect this. Only California protects completely (or nearly so) against this, and they are not at will.
California is at-will. There are different employment laws in California that make it harder to fire someone for no cause, but it's not not at-will.
There is actually only one state that has anything that can be construed as not at-will and it's Montana.
If we consider California to be "at will", who is NOT at will?
Variations on a theme.
California has additional protected classes, like sexual orientation and gender identity, that even other state don't recognize. But if I have someone in my employ in California and want them gone because they like the Green Bay Packers, absent a contract stating otherwise, I can do it. It's the same way that if an employee says "F[moderated] this shit, I'm out!" and doesn't come back, the employer can't force them back to work or restrict them without consideration in the contract beforehand.
Montana is the only state that has any kind of protection for release without cause. But it doesn't stop an employee from saying "F[moderated] this shit, I'm out!"
-
@PSX_Defector At will and right to work (employee leaving) are to completely different things.
-
@PSX_Defector said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@PSX_Defector said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@PSX_Defector said:
At-will has its points in that if I wanted to leave tomorrow, there is nothing my company can do to prevent me from going to one of our competitors.
At will does not protect this. Only California protects completely (or nearly so) against this, and they are not at will.
California is at-will. There are different employment laws in California that make it harder to fire someone for no cause, but it's not not at-will.
There is actually only one state that has anything that can be construed as not at-will and it's Montana.
If we consider California to be "at will", who is NOT at will?
Variations on a theme.
California has additional protected classes, like sexual orientation and gender identity, that even other state don't recognize. But if I have someone in my employ in California and want them gone because they like the Green Bay Packers, absent a contract stating otherwise, I can do it. It's the same way that if an employee says "F[moderated] this shit, I'm out!" and doesn't come back, the employer can't force them back to work or restrict them without consideration in the contract beforehand.
Montana is the only state that has any kind of protection for release without cause. But it doesn't stop an employee from saying "F[moderated] this shit, I'm out!"
Actually California, like eleven other states, have clauses to make that specifically difficult for an employer to do just that. You have to have a cause for letting them go. It's the good faith clause.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@PSX_Defector At will and right to work (employee leaving) are to completely different things.
Right to work has to deal with organized labor. At will has to do with hiring and firing.
Me leaving a job is an at-will situation. Me paying union dues in a union represented position is a right to work situation.
-
@PSX_Defector said:
Me leaving a job is an at-will situation.
Not sure which state's laws you are referring to but, here it is not. at will in no way protects your right to leave a job. It just protects the employers right to fire you.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Actually California, like eleven other states, have clauses to make that specifically difficult for an employer to do just that. You have to have a cause for letting them go. It's the good faith clause.
Not codified in law like Montana. An implied consent doesn't equal a protection codified. But one can still fire for no reason or cause. You just have to be much more on the ball and know the game well to keep it from coming back on you.
And that's not to say that I can't just change the rules mid-stream. If I hired a Packers fan, then changed the rules in the office, they either can suck it up and root for someone else or leave.
It's like union employees. People think they can't be fired. My friend used to do it all the time at AT&T, so well that my CWA steward friends knew about him. You have to have your ducks in a row, know your contracts and ensure that folks are lined up properly to be spanked. Hasn't had a single one come back yet.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@PSX_Defector said:
Me leaving a job is an at-will situation.
Not sure which state's laws you are referring to but, here it is not. at will in no way protects your right to leave a job. It just protects the employers right to fire you.
It cuts both ways. If an employer can fire you for no reason, an employee can leave for no reason. There is professional decorum that comes into play, like two weeks notice and such, but if I got a job offer tomorrow I have no legal obligation to my employer to tell them anything in an at-will situation.
Without a contract stating otherwise, it's pretty much like that everywhere. There is the implied things Scott was talking about, but not like what happens in Montana. There is the only true non-at-will employment situation in the United States.
-
@PSX_Defector said:
It's like union employees. People think they can't be fired. My friend used to do it all the time at AT&T, so well that my CWA steward friends knew about him. You have to have your ducks in a row, know your contracts and ensure that folks are lined up properly to be spanked. Hasn't had a single one come back yet.
Unions can make it easier to fire too. All depends on the union.
-
@PSX_Defector said:
It cuts both ways. If an employer can fire you for no reason, an employee can leave for no reason.
But that's not in at-will employment law, some people think it is. That right comes from not having an employment contract. In VA we are at will but, if you have an contract you don't have the right to quit until the contract is expired.. they still can fire or terminate you.
