[OT] OMG - Part Deux!

"Victor Martinez" wrote in message
...
Helen Miles wrote:
Move to the UK Victor. Here we even have legislation that says you're

We would love to move to Burope, trust me. Tom spent the summer after
college biking around England and he loved it there!
Maybe one day...


Aye, move to Burope. In this bit of Burope you can even have your's and
Tom's relationship legally recognised by having a civil partnership ceremony
which is effectively a marriage, as it makes you legally the next of kin to
each other and you can even divorce each other if subsequently it doesn't
work out. If it's good enough for Elton & David... :-D

"Jo Firey" wrote in message
om...

"Yowie" wrote in message
...
"Jo Firey" wrote in message
t...

wrote in message
oups.com...

jmcquown wrote:


Document, document, document. And if they reprimand you in writing,
refuse
to sign anything until you can mull it over and add your two cents if
you
want to. They have to allow you to rebut/refute the "charges" (so to
speak). Purrs for your nerves and keep on looking, my dear!

Jill

Not really, not in all states. I think TX is also an "at will" state
(is that right term?) You can be fired for any reason, or no reason at
all. Somebody correct me if my understanding of this is wrong. It
doesn't affect your right to draw unemployment, but you can't really
sue for being wrongfully fired. I'm sure there are extreme exceptions
to this.

Sherry


That is where it gets tricky. You can be fired for no reason at all.
But
not "for any reason". It is just very hard for an individual employee
to
prove they were fired for a prohibited reason when the employer didn't
need
a reason.

Of course in Lori's case it seems to be the company is persecuting her
for religious reasons. (Yes I know that's silly. But in effect that is
what the HR person seems to be saying)

ahh, but this has been documented by HR twice, and if Lori has been
clever, she'd have a copy of the two warnings. Or will get them soon. The
first was *certainly* sexual discrimination. "The wife doesn't like the
way you look" cannot be anything else.

I think there is a case here, if Lori wanted to persue it.

I'd also strongly sugest Lori gets a written copy of company poicy and
any suggests to the HR guy that any further complaints must relate to
said compnay policy not just the Wife's whims. Makes her look like she
aint gonna take rubbish and knows her rights. If it looks liek she's
building a case, the wife might just back off. Can she afford to be sued
for harassmet & discrimination?

Yowie


I'd be willing to bet neither of Lori's run ins with HR were put in
writing. Of course I could be wrong.

Jo

No, they weren't. They were presented more as a "heads up - watch out for
the bit*h" warning.

Hugs,

CatNipped

"Annie Wxill" wrote in message
...

"MaryL" -OUT-THE-LITTER wrote in message
news

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
...
snip
I KNEW there was a reason I've never considered Texas as a possible
home!
Annie

.... Unfortunately, it *is* true that employees in the private sector
can be fired for almost any reason, even silly or frivolous ones.
Fortunately, I work at a state university. Most state employees in Texas
are not well-compensated, but we do have far more protections from
arbitrary dismissal (and even *that* will vary, depending on which sector
of public employment is involved).
... MaryL
Mary,
Please note that I did not write the above. Evelyn blended her comment
with mine and left my signature below. I'm sure she was in a hurry, and
it's not hard to do.

However, the comment is not accurate in my case. I've been a Texas
resident since 1994 and retired last year from employment at a state
university.

For the record, I agree with your comments above.

Annie


Thanks, Annie. It does become difficult to keep authors straight when a
thread develops and various people intersperse comments. I sometimes
intersperse several comments within a message, and I know the actual authors
are likely to get "lost" over a period of time.

MaryL

On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 18:24:52 -0600, "jmcquown"
wrote:

Heh, back in 1978 I got a job in a department store. The guy who
interviewed me asked if I was married. Uh, no, but my boyfriend and I are
thinking of getting engaged. He asked, "So, does that mean you plan to get
pregnant soon?" (The implication being, if you're gonna need maternity
leave in the next year we won't be hiring you.) I'll admit I was
flabbergasted but back then it wasn't illegal to ask questions like that.

It was illegal then, but that didn't stop people from asking. I was
in management at the time and that was one of the things we were told
we could not ask prospective hires.

Bud
--
The night is just the shadow of the Earth.

CatNipped wrote:

I was just called "on the carpet" into the HR Director's office again. It
seems the President/CEO/Owner's wife (the CFO) was complaining about me to
the HR director again.

What did I do this time that was so awful as to warrant a dressing down
(although the HR Director had the grace to look shame-faced about having to
do it)?

I sent a note out to everyone (this being about 10 people, since we're such
a small company) to remind people that the company's vice president has a
birthday this Saturday.
snip
Geez, folks, what the heck am I going to do? I'm still looking for other
employment, but the pickings are *really* slim here in Houston.

Hugs,

CatNipped


Hugs and purrs,
Polonca and Soncek

Annie Wxill wrote:

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
...
(snip of what I wrote.)


I KNEW there was a reason I've never considered Texas as a possible home!

Annie



Evelyn,

Please be more careful with your attributions. You left my signature under
your comment and did not sign your own sig. That makes it appear that I
wrote the above.

Sorry. I was under the impression most people went by the
attributions on top (how else would you have known it was my
post to which you were replying?) I always consider
signatures under the messages either superfluous or an
excuse for appending a clever tag-line. Consequently, I
don't always bother to erase them. (If it bothers you, I'll
try to make an exception in your case, from now on.)

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
...


Annie Wxill wrote:

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
...
(snip of what I wrote.)


I KNEW there was a reason I've never considered Texas as a possible home!

Annie



Evelyn,

Please be more careful with your attributions. You left my signature
under your comment and did not sign your own sig. That makes it appear
that I wrote the above.

Sorry. I was under the impression most people went by the attributions on
top (how else would you have known it was my post to which you were
replying?) I always consider signatures under the messages either
superfluous or an excuse for appending a clever tag-line. Consequently, I
don't always bother to erase them. (If it bothers you, I'll try to make
an exception in your case, from now on.)

I would like to "second" Annie's request. It is always better to include
your own signature to avoid confusion. I would also like to suggest that we
take care to include the address of the person we are responding to -- that
is, to snip addresses when we snip all of their text but to let the addy
remain attached to the document when we snip only part of the message. It
is easy to lose track of "who wrote what" when various people intersperse
comments.

MaryL