In other news, 40% of Americans have bad sex lives.
In other news, 40% of Americans have bad sex lives.
i think most can argue even in true free markets that who cares what happens to people that like that.
The question is whether that data collection was legal, and fell with a scope that didn't amount to a fishing expedition. There are two main reasons everyone should care about this:
1) If it's not legal, then it risks these suspects going free on a technicality.
2) If it's not legal, but people decide to just let it slip by because "those people are horrible", then it sets a precedent that said methods are OK, and it gets harder for it later to be declared illegal when the government starts using it for less clear-cut or outright nefarious purposes.
What difference at this point does it make?
The difference at this point is to hold the DNC higher-ups responsible for this shitshow of a candidate, and make sure they don't do this again. The next time we have a primary candidate drawing in more new voters than any candidate in recent history just for the primaries, and actually getting people honestly excited about voting, then maybe it's a good idea not to conspire against them and destroy their campaign.
Dear DNC and superdelegates: Thanks so much for giving us the most unpopular Democratic nominee in living memory. What should have been a landslide win has become a complete fucking nightmare. Good job.
That's the HBO model isn't it ? At least you can subscribe only to Netflix, you can't do that with HBO courtesy of the cable industry fucks.
Actually, you can. That's what their HBO Now service is for. It costs more than Netflix does, but if you like HBO's original programming and don't want to wait for DVD/BluRay, it's definitely worthwhile to look into.
Some of us desperately want browsers to add some type of animation limitation or control.... if it is even possible.
FlashBlock and NoScript on Firefox do a pretty good job of that.
To be honest, it still sounds like a problem with you.
No, I'd say it's a problem with you making wild assumptions and assuming the worst of someone just because they're an employer instead an employee.
What's your business continuity plan look like, call up all your staff and hope someone picks up?
More or less. Nothing we do is going to be dire enough that the whole place falls apart if someone can't be reached. (Unless the whole place literally falls apart, but somehow I think that'd be more of a call to 911.) Worst case scenario we close down during normal business hours - not the end of the world. And yes, I trust whoever's in charge to make that decision.
So you expect me to never sleep, swim, surf, go diving, camping or any other phone free activity.
If you're not by your phone, you're not by your phone. WTF is wrong with you that you keep insisting on assumed unreasonableness? Do I have to make a post 15 pages long with all the reasons someone might not be able to answer their phone, or the times I'd consider calling, or what I'd call for? Or can you just go along with the spirit of what I've stated repeatedly about being reasonable?
Jesus, if you need this much babysitting to figure anything out, I'd bet you've never had a boss trust you enough to not have to spell everything out like this.
Anything below emergency I typically email and expect to be done when convenient - typically the next work day.
Then send the email to their work mail address, otherwise you're just trying to get them to burn their own time to read it and then think about the solution.
I only ever use work email addresses. I find it odd that anyone would send work-related materials to a non-work address. Is this common elsewhere?
We have business hours for a reason.
Which both actions mentioned indicate you try to get around.
Your definition of "get around" is odd. Email sent to a work address that I don't care if they see until they work next is not "getting around" anything. Calling someone to cover someone else's shift is typically a same-day affair and cannot wait. And an emergency is also, by definition, time-sensitive, and you need to know immediately who is and is not available to help.
In short, your human resources have learned to treat you as an income resource, so now it's suddenly a problem.
Nope. I get along with my employees just fine. If problems come up at work, they help deal with them. If they have problems come up (work or personal), I do what I can to fix or accommodate. I'm sorry you feel so jaded that you automatically assume the worst. I guess the difference is that I treat my employees like adults, and find that most of them act like it.
>As a business owner, I expect my employees to by reasonably available, even after hours.
You can either
1) Mention this in the contract, and arrange for pay with a reasonable markup.
What makes you think I didn't?
2) Go fuck yourself.
You're the business owner, so you deal with emergencies, or plan for others (your employees) to handle them.
The plan is that if one comes up, whoever is best equipped to deal with it (often me) gets a phone call to see if they're available. If they're not, then it goes to the next person. Hence, "reasonably available".
We have a rota of people who are on call and they are paid well for the privilege. I do not take part in this rota, so am not to be called. I'm not penalised for this, other than not getting on-call money.
You've got some misunderstanding over likelihood of actually being called, here. Places with someone on call expect to have to call someone often enough that they set up for that. Places without someone on call (like my business) typically have something happen only a few times a year at most.
Why should you expect something and yet not pay for it? If you expect me to deal with an emergency, even once per year, that means I am on call.
1) The only thing I expect is that you'll answer the phone and talk to me for a minute. After that it's up to you to decide if you can/will help out with the emergency. 2) I don't know why you think I'm implying you wouldn't get paid. 3) Being "on call" is something completely different, as that means helping when called is not optional.
I don't understand the American attitude to work.
Really, the way you have to look at what I'm talking about is this: Something unexpected came up (be it some actual emergency, or something more mundane like someone calling in sick). If you get called in this situation, you're being offered the option of picking up extra paid hours to help deal with it. It's your decision whether you take advantage of the extra available work or not.
As a business owner, I expect my employees to by reasonably available, even after hours.
What is reasonable?
Do you pay them extra for being on alert? If not, then expecting anything is unreasonable.
I expect basic human decency from them. I guess in your mind I should be paying extra for that? You must be lovely to work with.
Well, if it's an emergency of some sort, I call or text them, depending on the immediacy. (Emergency being defined as anywhere from "someone's sick, can you cover a shift?" to "something's on fire".)
In other words, you shift the cost of preparing for emergencies from your business to your employees, thus making a higher profit at their expense.
In other words, you find asking someone if they want to pick up extra hours, and get paid for it, to deal with something unforeseen as me somehow making a higher profit off of them
And are apparently proud of yourself.
Proud that I have a good enough relationship with my employees that I can call them up and ask them for help occasionally without them reacting like the self-important asshole you seem to be? Sure, I'll take that.
No, he's right. By expecting them to answer in an emergency, you're still putting an availability requirement on them. In sane countries, you can't require that without pay.
You're confusing "getting a call a few times a year to see if you're available to help with something" with "being on call". There's a difference - in the first case, which is what I was talking about, it was something unexpected coming up and you being called to see if you can help deal with it. It's the type of emergency where it's last minute and as such you're free to refuse. The second case is being "on call" where emergencies come up often enough, due to the size or nature of the business, that it's expected something will happen more often than not. You're being paid to be on call because you don't have the option to refuse dealing with it.
My boss knows my mobile number and my personal email address. She's welcome to email or text me if there's info I need for first thing the next working day, but unless arranged in advance, I'm not available even for emergencies.
You do understand that emergencies, by their very nature, are not "arranged in advance", right?
Basically, your entire attitude is that unless your boss pays you to be on call 24/7/365 you'll just tell her to fuck off if she calls you for anything? That's a pretty selfish attitude to have. If you had some kind of emergency, would your boss tell you to go to hell? If so, fair play, I guess.
Covering shifts is not done so much for the benefit of the business as it is done for the benefit of your co-workers.
Bullshit. Sure, things can be more hectic for an employee if people can't come in, but if the business weren't harmed by not having the specified number of people there, I'm pretty sure you'd find out that having 4 people instead of 5 there is suddenly "correct staffing levels" instead of being "short-staffed".
Untrue. Staffing levels are typically made for expected peak business requirements, and sanity levels of employees.
Let's use fast food restaurants as an example: If they decide they need 15 people for a shift, then odds are they "only really need" 12-13. But then what happens when you have a day with 15-20% higher customer levels? The customer gets worse service than expected, leading to less repeat business, leading to worse long-term sales, which is why they schedule in the extra employees. Additionally, there are various types of prep work that are scheduled in for those employees to do each day that can be put off until later in situations of peak customer turnout. There's also the employee sanity levels to account for: At that 12-13 staff level, the employees are stretched thinner, their stress levels run higher, and they're more likely to make mistakes. If those mistakes cause extra work, this quickly compounds the issue. While this may be acceptable in the short run, it's a nightmare long-term as the employees hate their jobs, the work environment turns toxic, and it starts to effect customer service.
With this built-in staffing buffer, a short-staffed business's employees can deal with it for a few days before their stress levels get high enough to really affect their work. So yes, covering for a coworker is more for the coworkers' benefits than it is for the business's, as the problems short-staffing causes are felt by the employees immediately, but not by the business unless it lasts for a long enough time.
You can't take damsel here now.