So how does the new firm know that you were "unprofessional" in the timing of your departure?
That's an easy one. They ask if you're eligible to be rehired.
If you've done something bad or pissed off your management, the answer will be "no".
Since the company isn't disclosing any personal information or making any allegations regarding your conduct, there is nothing they can be sued over.
This is a fairly standard practice in corporate HR.
If you worked for a large business, you could probably dream up a not-entirely-terrible explanation since you know they will not provide any other details. It will still be a mark against, but you can mitigate it quite a bit.
I'm sure it varies by company, but you usually have to do more than just piss off management to be ineligible for rehire. Usually it's things like quitting without notice, stealing, etc.
... why can't he waive state laws?
The last time the president did that, hundreds of thousands of Americans lost their lives in the resulting conflict.
Presidents (and federal officials) can browbeat states into changing state law pretty easily by threatening to revoke federal funds.
the study revealed NO CORRELATION.
Zippo. Nada. None. Zilch.
Most studies have found an IQ to income correlation of 0.4 to 0.5. That is not particularly strong, but it isn't zero. The correlation is weaker for people with very high IQs. Someone with an IQ of 100 (normal) will earn much more than someone at 60 (mildly retarded). Someone with an IQ of 120 will do significantly better than someone at 100. But someone with an IQ of 160 (genius) will do little better than someone at 120, on average.
Higher IQ's likely get diverted into research and education which may not pay as well as something like investment banking. We should really start tracking sociopath scores and seeing if they have any correlation with income.
according to our social contract
Show me this "social contract". I think a big part of the problem here is delusional reasoning based on imaginary things that don't actually exist. I grant that there is cooperation in a society, it is an inherent and necessary component. But to claim that is a "contract", requires that the thing be voluntary and agreed to.
In any type of reasonable court the "social contract" concept would be thrown out due to Unconscionability. One side has grossly unequal bargaining power. Social Contract is a nicer way of saying "Ultima Ratio".
This doesn't make any sense to me either. Current pills containing hydrocodone are a mixture with other drugs, mostly other drugs that have a higher toxicity, and part of the reason for that is to keep people from taking too many of them. If you OD on Vicodin, it's not the 5mg of hydrocodone that kills you, it's the 500mg of acetaminophen. For a 50kg person, you can get to a reasonably toxic quantity of acetaminophen (200 mg/kg) with 20 vicodin, which gives you a dose of 100mg of hydrocodone, or 2 mg/kg. Quick googling found this: http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-... that gives animal toxicity studies showing an LD50 for hydrocodone in the range of 86 mg/kg (mice) to 375 mg/kg (rats). Granted, you certainly don't want to take anything *near* to the LD50 of any drug, but the highest dosage for a Zohydro pill is 50 mg. For a 50kg person to get a dose of 1/4 the mouse LD50 would be over 20 pills. As noted, if those 20 pills were vicodin, then they would also be toxic, but only because of the acetaminophen. And really, if you're downing 20 of *any* prescription painkiller, you almost certainly have a different goal in mind than temporary pain relief. I just really don't see this as causing much harm, and potentially helping a fairly specific set of people who need it.
People who are intent on abusing pills can get around the acetaminophen simply by breaking the pills up, putting them in cold water, and running them through a coffee filter. This is known as cold water extraction.
Part of the reason for the acetaminophen in painkillers is because of a loophole in the 1970 Controlled Substances Act that classified pure Hydrocodone as a strictly controlled Schedule II drug (Which Zohydro will fall under). However, Hydrocodone combination products, such as Vicodin, which contains Hydrocodone and acetaminophen, into the less strict Schedule III classification. As a Schedule III drug, combination drugs such as Vicodin can be refilled as many as five times, while Schedule II drugs can be filled only once.
So why is there so much pushback against Zohydro, when it clearly fits a need and will be more difficult to obtain and abuse than Vicodin? I think it might have to do with the fact that it's put out by a tiny company (Zogenix) rather than one of the big players. Teva Pharmaceuticals who literally spent millions on lobbying last year has a competing product "TD Hydrocodone" which they're trying to get to market, but Zogenix beat them to it. If Zohydro were delayed for a little while, perhaps they could get to market with their competing drug and given their vastly larger resources they'd likely win market share. Another large company Purdue Pharma (the makers of OxyContin) also have something in the works
"If you can, help others. If you can't, at least don't hurt others." -- the Dalai Lama