RANT: All the Issues are My Fault and You Won't Answer My Questions
-
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.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
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.
Really? You actually cannot quit?
Depending on the contract, wouldn't it equally stop them firing you? Never heard of contract law that was binding to only one party in the contract.
-
Honestly, why would anyone work in Virginia?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Honestly, why would anyone work in Virginia?
Pretty much only teachers and some other odd jobs are contract based like that.
