|
My Job title has been recently changed any notification to me. I only
found out such changes when I saw this new title in my profile. I was
shocked to see such changes, since I have been using my "originally
known" (Job title offered in 2000, and confirmed in written by HR
earlier this year)title in alll correspondences. This includes my
resume, and in the job interviews elsewhere. This new title could be
percieved as 1)downgrade from my originl title, 2)misrepresentation by
me in the resume, which could become grounds from not being offered
the positions, if a potential employer contacts my current employer
for verification. What are the legal ramifications for such matters?
Does an employee have the right to fight? My job-performance has been
in the 95-100% meeting goals year-over-year for the past 6 years with
this employer. Any help will be very much appreciated. Thanks
|
| |
| |
"Fact-finder" wrote in misc.legal.moderated:
My Job title has been recently changed [without ?] any notification to me.
Does an employee have the right to fight?
In the United States, unless you have an employment contract with a
specific job title, or are covered by a union contract of government
civil service, you probably have no right to any particular job
title.
Of course, we have no way to know whether you're in the United States
since you didn't give a location.
--
If you e-mail me from a fake address, your fingers will drop off.
I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. When you read anything
legal on the net, always verify it on your own, in light of your
particular circumstances. You may also need to consult a lawyer.
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
|
| |
| |
Fact-finder wrote:
... This new title could be
percieved as 1)downgrade from my originl title, 2)misrepresentation
by
me in the resume, which could become grounds from not being offered
the positions, if a potential employer contacts my current employer
for verification. What are the legal ramifications for such matters?
Does an employee have the right to fight? My job-performance has been
in the 95-100% meeting goals year-over-year for the past 6 years with
this employer. Any help will be very much appreciated. Thanks
Relax. It is not unusual for a company to change job titles in their
HRIS system. The critical issue for you is whether or not your pay
range (if used) changed.
Because many employers use generic job titles (a bad idea IMHO, but
that is a discussion for a different day) employees use what I call
"desk titles" that more accurately describe their role or duties.
Were I applying for a job I would use the desk title until you are at
the 2nd interview stage. At that time inform the prospective employer
that the company changes titles in the HRIS system from time to time,
that when they go to verify your employment your position currently is
called "whatever". For example, a "Sr. Human Resource Specialist"
could be a Compensation Specialist, Employee Relations Specialist, a
Benefits Specialist, or any number of specialized functional Human
Resource Managers. This is not a scary issue.
|
| |
| |
<<<"Fact-finder" wrote in misc.legal.moderated:
My Job title has been recently changed [without ?] any notification to me.
Does an employee have the right to fight?>>>
Hmmm. Not enough info here. Do you have an employment contract? Are you in a
union that has a collective bargaining agreement (contract) with your employer?
What state are you in? Makes a difference for certain things.
Also, how old are you? Are you a member of a minority group defined as a
'protected' class (e.g., see NY Executive law on this).
Not enough information here to answer your question.
The foregoing information is NOT legal advice; it is merely comment made in
accordance with general legal principles, and does not establish an attorney
client relationship. For more information contact an attorney licensed to
practice in your state.
SEF
(atty in NY)
SEFSTRAT
solo webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
band webpage: www.timebanditsrock.com
|
| |
| |
effects of the intrusion of industrial society has been that over much
of the world traditional controls on population have been thrown out
of balance. Hence the population explosion, with all that it implies.
Then there is the psychological suffering that is widespread
throughout the supposedly fortunate countries of the West (see
paragraphs 44, 45). No one knows what will happen as a result of ozone
depletion, the greenhouse effect and other environmental problems that
cannot yet be foreseen. And, as nuclear proliferation has shown, new
technology cannot be kept out of the hands of dictators and
irresponsible Third World nations. Would you like to speculate abut
what Iraq or North Korea will do with genetic engineering?
170. "Oh!" say the technophiles, "Science is going to fix all that! We
will conquer famine, eliminate psychological suffering, make everybody
healthy and happy!" Yeah, sure. That's what they said 200 years ago.
The Industrial Revolution was supposed to eliminate poverty, make
everybody happy, etc. The actual result has been quite different. The
technophiles are hopelessly naive (or self-deceiving) in their
understanding of social problems. They are unaware of (or choose to
ignore) the fact that when large changes, even seemingly beneficial
ones, are introduced into a society, they lead to a long sequence of
other changes, most of which are impossible to predict (paragraph
103). The result is disruption of the society. So it is very probable
that in their attempt to end poverty and disease, engineer docile,
happy personalities and so forth, the technophiles will create social
systems that are terribly troubled, even more so that the present one.
For example, the scientists boast that they will end famine by
creating new, genetically engineered food plants. But this will allow
|
| |
| |
away from the family and put it into the hands of the state
as represented by the public school system.
154. Suppose a biological trait is discovered that increases the
likelihood that a child will grow up to be a criminal and suppose some
sort of gene therapy can remove this trait. [29] Of course most
parents whose children possess the trait will have them undergo the
therapy. It would be inhumane to do otherwise, since the child would
probably have a miserable life if he grew up to be a criminal. But
many or most primitive societies have a low crime rate in comparison
with that of our society, even though they have neither high-tech
methods of child-rearing nor harsh systems of punishment. Since there
is no reason to suppose that more modern men than primitive men have
innate predatory tendencies, the high crime rate of our society must
be due to the pressures that modern conditions put on people, to which
many cannot or will not adjust. Thus a treatment designed to remove
potential criminal tendencies is at least in part a way of
re-engineering people so that they suit the requirements of the
system.
155. Our society tends to regard as a "sickness" any mode of thought
or behavior that is inconvenient for
|
| |
| |
|
