|
Merry_Christmas@linkedto.no-spam-allowed.com wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
Arthur L. Rubin wrote:
Jesus Christ, I wasn't aware of that, but California being what it
is,
and like most blue states nearly bankrupt because of democrat
legislatures, I'm almost surprised it's not 10 weeks, and at triple
pay.
This is pretty close to enough incentive, especially with the
breeding
class south of the border now invading that state, to either get
pregnant, lie about a spouse being pregnant or manufacture a "spouse"
out of thin air. These folks manage to come up with more bogus
documents than Dan Rather, CBS and the DNC put together.
BY THE WAY:
I do not believe it is a violation of FMLA for an employer to grant the
time off, fill the empty position, and then offer the missing employee
a "equivalent" job when they return. The comparable job position could
then be eliminated (lay off). That is only one way to get around FMLA.
Or, they could just eliminate your position while you are gone.
Of course, some companies identify employees during their first year by
their absences. FMLA does not regulate first year of employment. An
employer may disallow any leave at all during the first three months,
and if you violate any tardiness or absense guidelines, they could
define you as someone "likely" to use FMLA and terminate you.
People who work for small businesses are not eligible at all.
FMLA terminations usually do not cost the employer as much money as one
would think--it is possible you may win double packpay, attorney's fees
or out-of-pocket costs. No compensation for pain or suffering, etc.
--S
|
| |
| |
In article <1103748212.954473.153900@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
Merry_Christmas@linkedto.no-spam-allowed.com wrote:
is,
breeding
BY THE WAY:
I do not believe it is a violation of FMLA for an employer to grant the
time off, fill the empty position, and then offer the missing employee
a "equivalent" job when they return. The comparable job position could
then be eliminated (lay off). That is only one way to get around FMLA.
Of course, that kind of thing CREATES jobs for lawyers. I can't tell
you how many of you Right Wing assholes think you can avoid the law
only to pay a fortune.
Or, they could just eliminate your position while you are gone.
Why? Out of spite? You have a lot of hate in you.
Bored...
|
| |
| |
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <1103748212.954473.153900@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
BY THE WAY:
I do not believe it is a violation of FMLA for an employer to grant
the
time off, fill the empty position, and then offer the missing
employee
a "equivalent" job when they return. The comparable job position
could
then be eliminated (lay off). That is only one way to get around
FMLA.
Of course, that kind of thing CREATES jobs for lawyers.
Heh, so would robbing a liquor store.
Or, they could just eliminate your position while you are gone.
Why?
So they wouldn't have to keep paying money for someone they don't need?
Out of spite?
An employer should be able to terminate whomever they want whenever
they want for whatever reason they want.
--S
|
| |
| |
In article <1103770656.335525.195200@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
BY THE WAY:
I do not believe it is a violation of FMLA for an employer to grant
the
time off, fill the empty position, and then offer the missing
employee
a "equivalent" job when they return. The comparable job position
could
then be eliminated (lay off). That is only one way to get around
FMLA.
Heh, so would robbing a liquor store.
That's right. Good analogy, too.
Or, they could just eliminate your position while you are gone.
So they wouldn't have to keep paying money for someone they don't need?
But if that was so, they would have done it anyway.
An employer should be able to terminate whomever they want whenever
they want for whatever reason they want.
Such as because they are discovered to be Jewish?
|
| |
| |
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <1103770656.335525.195200@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
That's right.
So I guess that means you are in favor of more crime so you can have a
job?
Good analogy, too.
It would be if every issue that involved a lawyer involved a crime,
too. Lots of times the businesses are found "not guilty."
Or, they could just eliminate your position while you are gone.
Why?
So they wouldn't have to keep paying money for someone they don't
need?
But if that was so, they would have done it anyway.
Yep.
Out of spite?
An employer should be able to terminate whomever they want whenever
they want for whatever reason they want.
Such as because they are discovered to be Jewish?
That too.
--S
|
| |
| |
In article <1103772345.579863.291360@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
So I guess that means you are in favor of more crime so you can have a
job?
Who said that?
It would be if every issue that involved a lawyer involved a crime,
too. Lots of times the businesses are found "not guilty."
You mean "Not Liable." "Not Guilty" only applies to accused criminals.
Or, they could just eliminate your position while you are gone.
Why?
So they wouldn't have to keep paying money for someone they don't
need?
Yep.
So the comment was pointless.
Out of spite?
An employer should be able to terminate whomever they want whenever
they want for whatever reason they want.
That too.
How about because thet won't have sex with you?
|
| |
| |
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <1103772345.579863.291360@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
So I guess that means you are in favor of more crime so you can
have a
job?
Who said that?
You were talking about how lawyers need jobs too.
Good analogy, too.
It would be if every issue that involved a lawyer involved a crime,
too. Lots of times the businesses are found "not guilty."
You mean "Not Liable." "Not Guilty" only applies to accused
criminals.
I care.
Or, they could just eliminate your position while you are
gone.
Why?
So they wouldn't have to keep paying money for someone they
don't
need?
But if that was so, they would have done it anyway.
Yep.
So the comment was pointless.
FMLA is pointless.
Out of spite?
An employer should be able to terminate whomever they want
whenever
they want for whatever reason they want.
Such as because they are discovered to be Jewish?
That too.
How about because thet won't have sex with you?
Yep, that too.
--S
|
| |
| |
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <1103772345.579863.291360@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
Good analogy, too.
It would be if every issue that involved a lawyer involved a crime,
too. Lots of times the businesses are found "not guilty."
You mean "Not Liable." "Not Guilty" only applies to accused
criminals.
BTW, "counselor," you are again FOS.
http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/US/OJ/simpson.civil.trial/
OJ Simpson (an accused criminal, not a business): LIABLE for the
deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.
Heh, lawyer indeed. ;)
--S
|
| |
| |
|
