It's Like a Double Yellow Line, and More!

« Return to Article
  • Preskooldude 2007-09-04 15:05
    I had intercourse with all of my customers

    ...and this is why you should always translate by hand.
  • Eric D 2007-09-04 15:18
    Preskooldude:
    I had intercourse with all of my customers

    ...and this is why you should always translate by hand.


    Are you sure the Chinese wasn't the version that was translated?
  • akatherder 2007-09-04 15:34
    The medical imaging story indirectly reminded me of a past experience.

    I got complacent and stayed with a job that I really liked but I was grossly underpaid for. I frequently talked with my boss about my low salary. He blamed it on our old management team (which was true to a degree). I told him I was looking for a new position and asked if I could use him as a reference.

    Boss: Sure, but we could accelerate your raises if money is the only issue.
    Me: Yeah it's the only issue, but I would need the details of this "accelerated raise schedule" and have it put in writing.
    Boss: I'll have to talk to my manager to see what we have in the budget.

    He never mentioned it to me again until I found a new job and put in my two weeks notice. Suddenly he could offer a substantial raise. I considered it, but went with the other job offer which doubled the raise he offered.

    They outsourced my job and all my old co-workers keep bugging me to come back and hate the guys who replaced me.
  • whicker 2007-09-04 15:37
    I think that last candidate was quite comfortable living on unemployment checks and just wanted some proof that he was actively looking for a job.


    As for that first one, even though I know some people tend to think in different and sometimes insightful ways, I probably would have burst out laughing had I been there.
  • James 2007-09-04 15:42
    When I read that last one, I'm picturing Kyle's cousin from the South Park episode "The Entity". "Now I have a headache from all that squinting" -- priceless!
  • pm 2007-09-04 15:56
    First meaning of intercourse in wiktionary is communication.

    Naughty meaning is listed as #4 of 4

    boring but true.
  • Stan 2007-09-04 16:05
    Offer at half the rate ...

    The father of a friend worked many years at a job and constantly told management it was highly skilled and he should have a raise. They finally got tired of this and fired him. They posted the position in the paper "no experience required"
    Ouch!
  • BestSnowman 2007-09-04 16:07
    akatherder:
    The medical imaging story indirectly reminded me of a past experience.

    I got complacent and stayed with a job that I really liked but I was grossly underpaid for. I frequently talked with my boss about my low salary. He blamed it on our old management team (which was true to a degree). I told him I was looking for a new position and asked if I could use him as a reference.

    Boss: Sure, but we could accelerate your raises if money is the only issue.
    Me: Yeah it's the only issue, but I would need the details of this "accelerated raise schedule" and have it put in writing.
    Boss: I'll have to talk to my manager to see what we have in the budget.

    He never mentioned it to me again until I found a new job and put in my two weeks notice. Suddenly he could offer a substantial raise. I considered it, but went with the other job offer which doubled the raise he offered.

    They outsourced my job and all my old co-workers keep bugging me to come back and hate the guys who replaced me.


    I quietly left a job that I was unhappy with, and underpaid, (put in my notice but didn't make a big deal of it). A couple weeks after my last day and I had been with my new job for a while I ran into my old boss's boss. Offered me a bigger raise than I had originally asked for. Felt good to turn him down :)
  • PCM2 2007-09-04 16:25
    Wait ... if you get laid off from your job, and then you find out that your old company is staffing the exact same position you held, only for half the pay ... isn't that totally illegal? At least, in CA I'm pretty sure it is.
  • Da' Man 2007-09-04 16:38
    PCM2:
    Wait ... if you get laid off from your job, and then you find out that your old company is staffing the exact same position you held, only for half the pay ... isn't that totally illegal? At least, in CA I'm pretty sure it is.

    In a number of countries you could sue the company for that. Surely in Germany: You could demand re-employment (at your old rate) and then settle for a one-off compensation instead.

    However, this compensation would then be deducted from your unemployment benefits - so it's probably not worth going through the trouble - especially since the risk of the lawsuit still rests on your own pocket - i.e. if you loose, you have to pay the costs from your dole, if you win, it will be taken from you.

    Speaking about WTF, eh? :-/
  • Kerry 2007-09-04 16:38
    PCM2:
    Wait ... if you get laid off from your job, and then you find out that your old company is staffing the exact same position you held, only for half the pay ... isn't that totally illegal? At least, in CA I'm pretty sure it is.


    That's what I was thinking, but it probably differs from state to state/country to country. And those companies usually find loop holes around it. For example, when I was laid off, they had to fill out some form and in the "Reason" field the put "Re-organization" instead of selecting "Position redundant" which would probably help them in court...

  • Manuel 2007-09-04 16:39
    For the first, I think Paco used a different key to decrypt the answer
  • mctaz 2007-09-04 16:39
    PCM2:
    Wait ... if you get laid off from your job, and then you find out that your old company is staffing the exact same position you held, only for half the pay ... isn't that totally illegal? At least, in CA I'm pretty sure it is.


    Why would that be illegal?
  • RC Pinchey 2007-09-04 16:42
    PCM2:
    Wait ... if you get laid off from your job, and then you find out that your old company is staffing the exact same position you held, only for half the pay ... isn't that totally illegal? At least, in CA I'm pretty sure it is.


    ...er... why would that be illegal, exactly? As long as it's above minimum wage, can't they offer whatever salary they like for a position?

    I would hope it would just be supply and demand- if you don't offer enough money, no-one will take the job. I really can't see the need to legislate for it!
  • Bruce W 2007-09-04 16:47
    I can relate to the last one well. I was performing interviews recently and noticed the candidate graduated within one semester of me from the same university in the same program (OK, yes, it was an MIS program). I worked hard to try and remember anyone with his name. During the interview I asked the following:

    Me: hey, I graduated close to when you graduated in the same program. What classes have you found most applicable to your work?
    Candidate: Ah, uh, well, technology is always changing so the classes aren't that applicable any more.
    Me: Well, I found that our database design class and systems analysis class to be helpful even 10 years later.
    Candidate: Well, uh, yeah, I guess. I don't do much with relational databases (even though his resume talked about his "extensive SQL database work").

    Needless to say he didn't get a second look. I trust he did graduate but I probably don't remember him because even then he would have been the type that gives MIS grads a bad rap.
  • Rob 2007-09-04 16:48
    I once was contacted (anonymously, through a job site) by a company, and I went for a job interview. Afterwards, they told me I didn't fit in with their "company culture".

    A few weeks later, the same company contacted me again. I replied with one question: "Now do I fit in with your company culture?" Never heard from them again. Never cared either.
  • a/c 2007-09-04 16:53
    Rob:
    I once was contacted (anonymously, through a job site) by a company, and I went for a job interview. Afterwards, they told me I didn't fit in with their "company culture".

    A few weeks later, the same company contacted me again. I replied with one question: "Now do I fit in with your company culture?" Never heard from them again. Never cared either.


    If their company culture is "don't be a dick" then probably not.
  • snoofle 2007-09-04 17:03
    Rob:
    I once was contacted (anonymously, through a job site) by a company, and I went for a job interview. Afterwards, they told me I didn't fit in with their "company culture".

    A few weeks later, the same company contacted me again. I replied with one question: "Now do I fit in with your company culture?" Never heard from them again. Never cared either.

    Sounds like their company culture is: be a mindless automaton doing a task without thinking...

    You're better off...
  • ParkinT 2007-09-04 17:03
    I like the change of pace with these snippets.
    Thanks Alex et al.
  • snoofle 2007-09-04 17:07
    PCM2:
    Wait ... if you get laid off from your job, and then you find out that your old company is staffing the exact same position you held, only for half the pay ... isn't that totally illegal? At least, in CA I'm pretty sure it is.

    I was laid off 3 months ago due to "restructuring". Essentially, they were looking for cheaper labor. Then they hired a junior guy to replace me with a VERY subtly different skillset. Unfortunately, he had no experience and so the project has languished, and the costs have exponentially dwarfed the salary difference.

    Ah well, save a dollar, spend 100 elsewhere as a result, don't get the job done, take credit for lowering costs - that's effective management!
  • SomeCoder 2007-09-04 17:17
    a/c:
    Rob:
    I once was contacted (anonymously, through a job site) by a company, and I went for a job interview. Afterwards, they told me I didn't fit in with their "company culture".

    A few weeks later, the same company contacted me again. I replied with one question: "Now do I fit in with your company culture?" Never heard from them again. Never cared either.


    If their company culture is "don't be a dick" then probably not.



    I wouldn't call that being a dick. I'd call that being irritated that the company is incompetent.

    I had a similar thing happen to me. Company calls me in for an interview, it seems to go no where. I go home thinking that I wasn't going to get it.

    About a month later, I get a call from the same company. The wording was slightly different so I thought it was a call back. I went back for a second interview... so I thought. The guy started to go through the entire interview process again from the beginning until I stopped him and told him that I had been here before. At that point, he decided that since he had picked me twice, I was good enough for the job.

    I didn't take it for reasons not really related to that WTF.
  • Anonymous 2007-09-04 17:21
    RC Pinchey:
    PCM2:
    Wait ... if you get laid off from your job, and then you find out that your old company is staffing the exact same position you held, only for half the pay ... isn't that totally illegal? At least, in CA I'm pretty sure it is.


    ...er... why would that be illegal, exactly? As long as it's above minimum wage, can't they offer whatever salary they like for a position?

    I would hope it would just be supply and demand- if you don't offer enough money, no-one will take the job. I really can't see the need to legislate for it!


    Because there is a legal difference between a layoff and a termination. The termination, from my limited understanding, opens the employer up to arbitration and/or lawsuits. A layoff just means, "we don't have work for these people or we can't pay them."

    Generally a layoff also means that you can't hire someone to replace a layed off person. You have to first offer the job back to the layed off person if they are available. Of course some companies just change the job description slightly to make it legally a different job when it is actually the same job. Who is going to catch them?

    I don't know that offering the same job for a lesser wage constitutes a change though. For the lower salary offered for that position, the original person would be insane to take it anyhow. They could have just offered the employee to get paid lower rather than laid them off. *shrug*

    Then there is the old trick that fast food companies used to use to get rid of people. Just cut their hours to nothing until they quit on their own.
  • DWalker59 2007-09-04 17:26
    In the US, I think that companies can fire people, eliminate positions, and add (or not add) new positions to their heart's content, at any salary they want, as long as it's above minimum wage. Even if the skill set is exactly the same as a former position, you can hire someone at half the salary that the previous employee had.

    I have worked at companies that didn't have specific, named "positions" even though they had a bunch of employees. (This is probably considered bad practice, from a "Human Resources" standpoint.)

    I don't know of any state laws that pre-empt this.

    I know that some countries (such as Germany) have stricter labor laws than the US.

    My employ is "at will". My employer can fire me for any reason, or for no reason at all. By law, they don't have to give a reason. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will, which mentions some exceptions.)
  • diaphanein 2007-09-04 17:26
    All these talks about layoffs remind me of my dad several years back. My dad worked in regional sales, territory covered several states in the northwest (huge geographical area). He was essentially forced out in an early retirement (take it or we'll fire ya, tough call). When he left, 3 guys were hired to cover his old territory and they still managed to lose half of his existing accounts. Cost effective, no?
  • FredSaw 2007-09-04 17:31
    I had intercourse with all of my customers
    I interviewed a guy a while back whose qualifications included "over two years of pubic relations experience".
  • DWalker59 2007-09-04 17:32
    PCM2:
    Wait ... if you get laid off from your job, and then you find out that your old company is staffing the exact same position you held, only for half the pay ... isn't that totally illegal? At least, in CA I'm pretty sure it is.


    Does CA=Canada or California?

    Unless the employee was hired under a definite employment contract, in which case the terms of that contract apply, California law allows companies to employ people "at will" and can fire them for no reason, and then hire a replacement at minimum wage.
  • seymore15074 2007-09-04 17:34
    a/c:
    Rob:
    I once was contacted (anonymously, through a job site) by a company, and I went for a job interview. Afterwards, they told me I didn't fit in with their "company culture".

    A few weeks later, the same company contacted me again. I replied with one question: "Now do I fit in with your company culture?" Never heard from them again. Never cared either.


    If their company culture is "don't be a dick" then probably not.


    Nice!
  • Ancient_Hacker 2007-09-04 17:34
    Why would this be illegal? Pay rates are in the USA set by the market. If they can find someone to work at "half pay" and do the job, that's a good thing.

    Nobody is forced to apply for and accept jobs they think they'll be underpaid at.



  • Someguy 2007-09-04 17:41
    SomeCoder:

    I had a similar thing happen to me. Company calls me in for an interview, it seems to go no where. I go home thinking that I wasn't going to get it.

    About a month later, I get a call from the same company. The wording was slightly different so I thought it was a call back. I went back for a second interview... so I thought. The guy started to go through the entire interview process again from the beginning until I stopped him and told him that I had been here before. At that point, he decided that since he had picked me twice, I was good enough for the job.


    The opposite happened to me: About a month after my interview they call me to tell me I didn't get the job. A few days later they call me again to tell me I didn't get the job.

    They rejected me twice.


    Captcha: "burned" indeed.
  • Brandon 2007-09-04 17:53
    In my state, it isn't only legal to lay off and offer the position at a reduced rate, it's done to state employees.

    Teachers get a pay raise after working for a year or two, due to raises passed by the legislature. But to sway costs, school boards will just give them the pink slip in May and offer them the job again in June without the raise built in. And since most teachers only have teaching certification in one state, they have little choice unless they move to a different school district.

    Maybe we should talk "No Teacher Left Behind" instead of the current mess our education system is in.
  • Brandon 2007-09-04 17:54
    Brandon:
    In my state, it isn't only legal to lay off and offer the position at a reduced rate, it's done to state employees.

    Teachers get a pay raise after working for a year or two, due to raises passed by the legislature. But to sway costs, school boards will just give them the pink slip in May and offer them the job again in June without the raise built in. And since most teachers only have teaching certification in one state, they have little choice unless they move to a different school district.

    Maybe we should talk "No Teacher Left Behind" instead of the current mess our education system is in.

    CAPTCHA: Pirates... quite fitting.
  • whicker 2007-09-04 18:11
    Brandon:
    Brandon:
    In my state, it isn't only legal to lay off and offer the position at a reduced rate, it's done to state employees.

    Teachers get a pay raise after working for a year or two, due to raises passed by the legislature. But to sway costs, school boards will just give them the pink slip in May and offer them the job again in June without the raise built in. And since most teachers only have teaching certification in one state, they have little choice unless they move to a different school district.

    Maybe we should talk "No Teacher Left Behind" instead of the current mess our education system is in.

    CAPTCHA: Pirates... quite fitting.


    I'm not following, and neither would a judge especially if this is state law...

    Teacher works there for 2 years.
    Teacher gets fired at end of school year.
    Teacher gets re-hired at start of new school year.
    Teacher has still worked there for 2 years.
  • Wene Girchinko 2007-09-04 18:18
    Someguy:
    SomeCoder:

    I had a similar thing happen to me. ...was good enough for the job.

    The opposite happened to me: They rejected me twice.


    not to be in a pissin contest... but you reminded me of the unfortunate dot bomb days. I got laid off on a Friday, and by the next Thursday, had been hired - was supposed to show up for the first day the following Monday - got a call Friday (exactly one week from my layoff) and was told not to show up on Monday, as there had been a major layoff.

    HA!! So I was laid off, hired and laid off again within one week's time.
  • surt 2007-09-04 18:31
    Wene Girchinko:
    Someguy:
    SomeCoder:

    I had a similar thing happen to me. ...was good enough for the job.

    The opposite happened to me: They rejected me twice.


    not to be in a pissin contest... but you reminded me of the unfortunate dot bomb days. I got laid off on a Friday, and by the next Thursday, had been hired - was supposed to show up for the first day the following Monday - got a call Friday (exactly one week from my layoff) and was told not to show up on Monday, as there had been a major layoff.

    HA!! So I was laid off, hired and laid off again within one week's time.


    Doesn't quite compete, but I started my first job (on monday) out of college at a place that laid off 2/3rds of the staff on friday. That was a bit scary, as I had moved across the state for that job. Fortunately I was cheap, and they kept me. I learned a lot doing self directed study as they spent the next 9 months just deciding what the company should do. The guy who hired me felt pretty bad about it, and helped me find my next job, too.
  • Ben Evans 2007-09-04 18:34
    whicker:
    Brandon:
    Brandon:
    In my state, it isn't only legal to lay off and offer the position at a reduced rate, it's done to state employees.

    Teachers get a pay raise after working for a year or two, due to raises passed by the legislature. But to sway costs, school boards will just give them the pink slip in May and offer them the job again in June without the raise built in. And since most teachers only have teaching certification in one state, they have little choice unless they move to a different school district.

    Maybe we should talk "No Teacher Left Behind" instead of the current mess our education system is in.

    CAPTCHA: Pirates... quite fitting.


    I'm not following, and neither would a judge especially if this is state law...

    Teacher works there for 2 years.
    Teacher gets fired at end of school year.
    Teacher gets re-hired at start of new school year.
    Teacher has still worked there for 2 years.


    It probably goes by fiscal year, not calendar year... if the teacher is laid off in fiscal year 1 and re-hired in fiscal year 2, then they are not considered continuous employment and their counter starts over (there could also be a 90 day expiration or something along those lines before that counter starts over too).
  • Mr Steve 2007-09-04 18:36
    DWalker59:
    In the US, I think that companies can fire people, eliminate positions, and add (or not add) new positions to their heart's content, at any salary they want, as long as it's above minimum wage. Even if the skill set is exactly the same as a former position, you can hire someone at half the salary that the previous employee had.

    I have worked at companies that didn't have specific, named "positions" even though they had a bunch of employees. (This is probably considered bad practice, from a "Human Resources" standpoint.)

    I don't know of any state laws that pre-empt this.

    I know that some countries (such as Germany) have stricter labor laws than the US.

    My employ is "at will". My employer can fire me for any reason, or for no reason at all. By law, they don't have to give a reason. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will, which mentions some exceptions.)



    :/ man

    i live in New Zealand which is the complete opposite, here it's basically impossible to fire someone
  • Jon 2007-09-04 18:48
    Rob:
    I once was contacted (anonymously, through a job site) by a company, and I went for a job interview. Afterwards, they told me I didn't fit in with their "company culture".

    A few weeks later, the same company contacted me again. I replied with one question: "Now do I fit in with your company culture?" Never heard from them again. Never cared either.
    It meant means they're desperate. The correct response is to ask for higher pay.
  • sas 2007-09-04 19:13
    PCM2:
    Wait ... if you get laid off from your job, and then you find out that your old company is staffing the exact same position you held, only for half the pay ... isn't that totally illegal? At least, in CA I'm pretty sure it is.

    Unfortunately, most of us do not work in communist countries. OTOH, we're mostly all headed towards that.

    I presume that if you ever paid, say $60/hour for a painter, you would never allow anyone to paint for you for any less?
  • Pingmaster 2007-09-04 19:25
    RC Pinchey:
    PCM2:
    Wait ... if you get laid off from your job, and then you find out that your old company is staffing the exact same position you held, only for half the pay ... isn't that totally illegal? At least, in CA I'm pretty sure it is.


    ...er... why would that be illegal, exactly? As long as it's above minimum wage, can't they offer whatever salary they like for a position?

    I would hope it would just be supply and demand- if you don't offer enough money, no-one will take the job. I really can't see the need to legislate for it!


    The action of hiring another employee to replace one who was let go isn't specifically illegal, letting one employee go for a reason that the employee would have been unable to self-correct (i.e. lack of money, elimination of position due to restructuring etc.) then re-hiring within a specific timeframe (most places is a couple months) can be argued as an illegal practise. Mind you, most companies will usually engineer a way to fire a person legally to replace their position with a lower-paid person, usually using the 'not a fit' excuse, or by modifying the requirements of the position away from the current employee's skillset.
  • Anon Fred 2007-09-04 19:28

    Because there is a legal difference between a layoff and a termination. The termination, from my limited understanding, opens the employer up to arbitration and/or lawsuits. A layoff just means, "we don't have work for these people or we can't pay them."


    I don't know what you're talking about, but in the US a "layoff" is much nicer to the (ex-)employee. It means "we're not paying this person any more, but it's not their fault." The employee generally gets unemployment compensation and doesn't have to say they were fired.

    The alternative is to say "fired" or "terminated with cause." The individual may not get UI compensation.

  • None 2007-09-04 19:51
    And remember - the legal advice you receive on this forum is worth what you paid for it.
  • Anon 2007-09-04 20:56
    Ancient_Hacker:
    Nobody is forced to apply for and accept jobs they think they'll be underpaid at.

    Indeed. Everyone always has a nice safety net available in case they can't find that dream job.
  • tALSit de CoD 2007-09-04 21:39
    I know of a guy that moved his entire life from the UK to Australia to work for a games company.

    Halfway through his second day of work, the entire company was shut down and everyone fired...
  • Lady Nocturne 2007-09-04 22:14
    I can't speak for other districts, but in the district in which I teach HS, as long as someone has been employed for at least half the year and holds a valid full credential (not a temporary credential) that half-year counts for a full year of service on the salary schedule. I got pink-slipped in March my first year because of district budget cuts, but then I was rehired in May for the following year, and I was able to keep my years of service and everything. Had I been teaching with a temporary credential, I would have stayed at the same number of years of service regardless of whether or not I received a pink slip--teachers in our district can't gain years of experience until they're fully credentialed.
  • operagost 2007-09-04 23:12
    Brandon:

    Maybe we should talk "No Teacher Left Behind" instead of the current mess our education system is in.

    You can blame these guys.
  • itchy 2007-09-04 23:39
    With all these layoff stories I'll throw mine in...

    A few years ago I had decided to leave my job and was really relishing the day I could give my notice as the company was going down the toilet. I had interviewed a few weeks earlier with a new firm and finalized a deal for a new gig at about 30% more pay. I went in to work the next day with my resignation letter in hand ready to submit it. As soon as I walked in the door I got called into the boss' office and was laid off along with 2/3 of the office. Talk about stealing my thunder.

    I called my new boss and told him what happened and that I could now start right away if he wanted. They weren't quite ready for me yet and Christmas was coming up so he told me to take the 6 weeks of UI, rest up and have a nice vacation and report to work on January 15th. I love it there!
  • swordfishBob 2007-09-04 23:45
    Preskooldude:
    I had intercourse with all of my customers
    ...and this is why you should always translate by hand.

    "Intercourse" doesn't have to be sexual. If in doubt, use a dictionary.
  • Anonymous Coward 2007-09-05 00:29
    The word "intercourse", taken out of context, isn't necessarily a reference to sexual activity, no. However, the phrase "to have intercourse with (someone)" most certainly is, as are all conjugations thereof.
  • aussie 2007-09-05 01:12
    This in Australia is called unfair dismissal. It is now legal for companies < 100 employees for any reason and > 100 employees for operational reason.
    Also in Australia if you are made redundant then part of your termination payment is concessionaly taxed provided the termination is genuine. If you are dismissed and then rehired immediately the tax office will deem that you are gaming the system to get some tax free benefits and hence most company will not rehire you in 12 months.
  • George Nacht 2007-09-05 01:46
    The story about firing experienced worker because of raise request is nasty, but still somewhat logical. My soon-to-be-father-in-law has been fired after twelwe years, becuase he insisted that the company where he worked is terribly understaffed ...
    No, I can´t explain.
  • Nic 2007-09-05 01:50
    I had intercourse with all of my customers


    I speak very Engrish!
  • Nic 2007-09-05 01:55
    pm:
    First meaning of intercourse in wiktionary is communication.

    Naughty meaning is listed as #4 of 4

    boring but true.


    That entry must have been written by a woman.
  • Anon Fred 2007-09-05 02:08

    Also in Australia if you are made redundant then part of your termination payment is concessionaly taxed provided the termination is genuine.


    This is why we nuked you during the Korean War.

    U S A!! U S A!!
  • Rob 2007-09-05 03:53
    > This is why we nuked you during the Korean War.
    >
    > U S A!! U S A!!

    Will those with absolutely no clue about history please refrain from commenting on it....
  • Zoooommm! 2007-09-05 04:57
    As the sarcasm passes about a mile above your head.

    ;-)
  • alibongo 2007-09-05 05:41
    I worked for a large organisation where they were retrenching a number of people in one go. A group of about 40 of us were taken offsite by a third party organisation and split into two groups. One group was retrenched the other was reallocated to new roles. I was in the re-allocation group (happily). I was invited into a small office where I was told what a good job I'd been doing and that I had been reallocated to another (better) job within the org. I was asked to sign some paperwork and I pointed out that the paperwork wasn't in my name - after some moments of muttered discussions the two guys left ther room and came back a few minutes later to expalin their mistake. They'd got two surnames mixed up and I should have been retrenched!! The only saving grace was the guy who should have been in the room instead of me had already been retrenched and refused to be reallocated.
  • Dubie 2007-09-05 06:00
    I had intercourse with all of my customers


    Well, if he never had a customer, it's true that he had intercourse with all of them.
  • foxyshadis 2007-09-05 06:51
    I can honestly say that "retrenching" is the most bizarre euphemism for firing that I've heard yet. But I'm hopeful that others will chime in with more.
  • jmo 2007-09-05 06:57
    in the UK, if you are made redundant, the company cannot then just hire someone else for the role, as that would essentially be getting rid of someone when you do not have a reason to fire them.

    this is easily gotten around by giving the "same role" a different name.

    ie. they make a "software developer" redundant, and hire an "application designer" cheaper
  • nwbrown 2007-09-05 07:23
    Regarding the first, I'm a bit more worried about that guy's driving skills than I am his engineering skills...
  • Saemus Heaney 2007-09-05 08:17
    aussie:
    This in Australia is called unfair dismissal. It is now legal for companies < 100 employees for any reason and > 100 employees for operational reason.
    Also in Australia if you are made redundant then part of your termination payment is concessionaly taxed provided the termination is genuine. If you are dismissed and then rehired immediately the tax office will deem that you are gaming the system to get some tax free benefits and hence most company will not rehire you in 12 months.


    Unless of course your the lucky one who get retrenched, then contracted back with the company at leass hour and higher pay than you were before as seemed to have happened to my dad and so many of his friends after mining cuts in the late 90's.

    That'd be the life.

    CAPTHCA: dubya because everyone loves GWB
  • Cope with IT 2007-09-05 08:53
    foxyshadis:
    I can honestly say that "retrenching" is the most bizarre euphemism for firing that I've heard yet. But I'm hopeful that others will chime in with more.

    I also like the term "setting synergies free".
  • English soldier 2007-09-05 09:03
    Saemus Heaney:
    aussie:
    This in Australia is called unfair dismissal...


    Unless of course your the lucky one who get retrenched, then contracted back with the company at leass hour and higher pay than you were before as seemed to have happened to my dad and so many of his friends after mining cuts in the late 90's.

    "Nil Bearla maith agam". Eh Paddy?
  • Griglars 2007-09-05 09:05
    The imaging story reminded me of when I worked in a QA shop. They had announced a massive layoff of our entire department, stating it was unnecessary and redundant with a similar team they had in Arizona. But due to several contracts, they gave us all 90 days to find another job in the company or elsewhere. Nobody in the company ever returned our calls, and our resumes were often deleted from the internal resume area.

    A huge job recruitment conference was being held in an nearby hotel. A bunch of us went to see what we could find. Lo and behold, there was our company, recruiting. For what? QA jobs. So a bunch of us sat and talked with the recruiters, but we didn't tell them where we worked until they asked. After a few of us, they got confused, and called the corporate office. Corporate told them to fold up the booth and leave. But before they shooed us away and fled, we found out that starting salary they were promising was at least 25% MORE than we were making now.

    So, what next? Why not show up to the shareholders meeting? The one broadcast live via satellite? They had invited us after the layoff, which seemed like a slap in the face, but now it was an opportunity for mischief. So we all showed up, and one of our people stood up during "open mic" and asked the company CEO, "How come we're being laid off, nobody is willing to hire us from within, yet you have recruiters asking for new people at higher salaries for our old jobs? Have we been blacklisted? Did we do something wrong? Wouldn't it make more sense to promote people from within, who already know the system, have passed background checks, and work for less?"

    Oddly enough, half of the audience started cheering. Apparently, this was a company wide problem. The CEO's face went blank, and said he'd look into the problem. To his credit, he passed down a mandate that no resumes posted would be deleted, and that anyone who submits a resume to a department would be contacted within 48 hours or they could lodge a complaint.

    By the time 90 days had ended, almost anyone who hadn't left the company had a job elsewhere in the company. There were rumors that the CEO was afraid that, given the large amount of minorities on our team, this could be construed as an EOE violation.
  • Random832 2007-09-05 09:17
    Griglars:
    The imaging story reminded me of when I worked in a QA shop. They had announced a massive layoff of our entire department, stating it was unnecessary and redundant with a similar team they had in Arizona. But due to several contracts, they gave us all 90 days to find another job in the company or elsewhere. Nobody in the company ever returned our calls, and our resumes were often deleted from the internal resume area.

    A huge job recruitment conference was being held in an nearby hotel. A bunch of us went to see what we could find. Lo and behold, there was our company, recruiting. For what? QA jobs. So a bunch of us sat and talked with the recruiters, but we didn't tell them where we worked until they asked. After a few of us, they got confused, and called the corporate office. Corporate told them to fold up the booth and leave. But before they shooed us away and fled, we found out that starting salary they were promising was at least 25% MORE than we were making now.

    So, what next? Why not show up to the shareholders meeting? The one broadcast live via satellite? They had invited us after the layoff, which seemed like a slap in the face, but now it was an opportunity for mischief. So we all showed up, and one of our people stood up during "open mic" and asked the company CEO, "How come we're being laid off, nobody is willing to hire us from within, yet you have recruiters asking for new people at higher salaries for our old jobs? Have we been blacklisted? Did we do something wrong? Wouldn't it make more sense to promote people from within, who already know the system, have passed background checks, and work for less?"

    Oddly enough, half of the audience started cheering. Apparently, this was a company wide problem. The CEO's face went blank, and said he'd look into the problem. To his credit, he passed down a mandate that no resumes posted would be deleted, and that anyone who submits a resume to a department would be contacted within 48 hours or they could lodge a complaint.

    By the time 90 days had ended, almost anyone who hadn't left the company had a job elsewhere in the company. There were rumors that the CEO was afraid that, given the large amount of minorities on our team, this could be construed as an EOE violation.


    Did you ever find out why the resumes kept getting deleted, and why the recruiters were told to leave?
  • TheRubyWarlock 2007-09-05 09:21
    Half of these horror stories is the exact reason why most countries are fucked up and don't have their priorities straight - the fact its legal for companies to string people along and pull this kind of shit is complete rubbish; the fact that when there ARE laws it's easy to circumvent is even worse. Too many laws to protect the company, and almost nothing to protect the employee. Bullshit. Complete fucking bullshit.

    Random832:
    Did you ever find out why the resumes kept getting deleted, and why the recruiters were told to leave?


    From what he hinted at in the story, probably because the CEO really WAS trying to discriminate against the minorities. So like a coward the company told the recruiters to leave the conference so the soon-to-be-ex-employees didn't find out any more dirt. That seems to be a common tactic: When you know you're doing something wrong, you cover it up so people can't ask questions.
  • Leo 2007-09-05 09:26
    In Brazil we have an "employment fund", and works like this: when you're paid, the company deposits some money in a special savings account. When you're fired, depending on the reason, they got to pay you a 40% fine of the money that's in that account.
    You can always be fired and some reasons let the employer not play the fine, for example, you show up drunk, refuse to use safety equipments, that sort of thing. The employer than fire you just because he feels like it, to cut costs, etc, but then he has to pay the fine.
    If you quit, you obviously don't get paid the fine and can't take any money out of that special saving account.
  • Tinkerghost 2007-09-05 09:38
    California law allows companies to employ people "at will" and can fire them for no reason, and then hire a replacement at minimum wage.

    There is a big legal difference between firing & laying off. Part of it's the statistics the state uses to handle employment, part of it is the level of benefits your eligable for. IE, layed off employees in many states are elligable for a retraining budget - fired ones are not.
    Hence, laying someone off & rehiring for the same posisition defrauds the state of the value of the retraining.
  • akatherder 2007-09-05 09:48
    For the record, my favorite euphemism for firing is "rif" (reduction in force).

    I worked with this old fart who was let go from the phone company. I don't have the specifics on whether he was fired or laid off, but they re-hired younger people at a lower cost to replace him. He and some other co-workers in the same boat found out and sued the phone company. They won the lawsuit and got paid in stock from the phone company. They weren't allowed to "touch" the stock for X amount of years (five I think), and it absolutely tanked the year after they won the lawsuit.
  • Liquid Egg Product 2007-09-05 10:05
    Anon Fred:

    This is why we nuked you during the Korean War.

    U S A!! U S A!!


    This is one of the greatest comments of all time.
  • Zylon 2007-09-05 10:28
    Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
  • Irish Soldier 2007-09-05 11:10

    "Nil Bearla maith agam". Eh Paddy?


    Ma dhunan do thoin agus do cach a briseach amach as do amharchlann do dti go raibh do leine dubh salach.

    Have a nice day :)
  • Irish Soldier 2007-09-05 11:11

    "Nil Bearla maith agam". Eh Paddy?


    Ma dhunan do thoin agus do cach a briseach amach as do amharchlann do dti go raibh do leine dubh salach.

    Have a nice day :)
  • seymore15074 2007-09-05 11:17
    Zylon:
    Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!


    Sedam must have heard from his informants about our WMDs. I would have attacked Pearl Harbor, too.
  • grumble 2007-09-05 11:51
    aussie:
    This in Australia is called unfair dismissal. It is now legal for companies < 100 employees for any reason and > 100 employees for operational reason.
    Also in Australia if you are made redundant then part of your termination payment is concessionaly taxed provided the termination is genuine. If you are dismissed and then rehired immediately the tax office will deem that you are gaming the system to get some tax free benefits and hence most company will not rehire you in 12 months.


    Yikes, things sure have changed since I left aus 8 years ago. In the UK it's still illegal to make someone "redundant" (i.e. their position no longer exists) and hire someone else for that same job. That used to be the case in Australia too. Good to see Johnny Howard has improved things... or not.
  • seejay 2007-09-05 11:53
    In regards to it being illegal to hire someone after laying another person off.

    In Canada, employees are protected from the whims of employers by laws that don't allow them to be fired unless there's a reason. Reasons can range from the employee being incapable of doing their job to the company cutting back.

    When an employee is fired, it's because they've proven themselves incapable of doing the job (or done something bad worth firing over, such as committing fraud or wasting time or sleeping with the boss' wife). They don't have much recompense afterwards (no unemployment insurance, etc) although they could sue the company for wrongful dismissal if they can show that there was no grounds for the firing (I work in investigations and you wouldn't believe the employees that get caught stealing from the company, get fired for it, then sue the company afterwards... WTF??)

    If the employee is laid off for whatever reason (downsizing, aren't capable of doing the job but job wasn't necessarily advertised appropriately, etc) then it's seen as not the fault of the employee. But then the company *cannot* replace that person with someone else... by a layoff, the company is saying "we don't have a fit for you but you didn't do anything wrong, so technically we're willign to rehire you if we think we can fit you back in". The company has to either change the job description / title or wait X amount of time before replacing the person they let go. If they do hire someone else to replace the person they laid off, they can easily be sued by the ex-employee as there was technically no valid reason to lay them off.

    That's kinda how it works in a nutshell. I may be missing stuff or didn't explain it well, but I think that's the general gist of it.

    -- Seejay
  • vertagano 2007-09-05 12:03
    Anonymous Coward:
    The word "intercourse", taken out of context, isn't necessarily a reference to sexual activity, no. However, the phrase "to have intercourse with (someone)" most certainly is, as are all conjugations thereof.

    If only there were some intelligent intercourse on this site. I mean, seriously, there are kindergarten teachers who have more thoughtful intercourse with their classes than anything I read here.
  • Zylon 2007-09-05 12:14
    seymore15074:
    Zylon:
    Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!


    Sedam must have heard from his informants about our WMDs. I would have attacked Pearl Harbor, too.


    Jesus Christ. Just... stop posting, would you? Please. You make my brain hurt.
  • zip 2007-09-05 12:29
    TheRubyWarlock:
    Too many laws to protect the company, and almost nothing to protect the employee. Bullshit. Complete fucking bullshit.


    My protection is being good at my job. You might want to try it sometime.
  • TheRubyWarlock 2007-09-05 12:58
    zip:
    My protection is being good at my job. You might want to try it sometime.


    Being good at your job is of no help if you work for shitbags. In fact you sound like the type of scumfuck who would benefit from employees having no rights and companies having them all.
  • DrkMatter 2007-09-05 13:24
    Firing someone and hiring that same person again for a lower salary is illegal in most states where labor laws make it mandatory to give incremental raises/working conditions as people gain seniority. For example, in Quebec, the minimum vacation time is two weeks for anyone with under five years of seniority, three weeks after. Some employers try to cheat out of this system by firing employees then hiring them for the exact same position, minus the seniority benefits. This is an illegal practice.
  • Frenchier than thou 2007-09-05 13:28
    seejay:

    In Canada, employees are protected from the whims of employers by laws that don't allow them to be fired unless there's a reason. Reasons can range from the employee being incapable of doing their job to the company cutting back.

    When an employee is fired, it's because they've proven themselves incapable of doing the job (or done something bad worth firing over, such as committing fraud or wasting time or sleeping with the boss' wife).

    -- Seejay

    Well, I don't know about the boss's wife. Of course it could be construed as a breach of trust (whis is one of the Good Reasons in Canadian law), but does the boss really want to put it in writing on a document that will become a public property?
  • Anon Fred 2007-09-05 13:43
    DrkMatter:

    Firing someone and hiring that same person again for a lower salary is illegal in most states where labor laws make it mandatory to give incremental raises/working conditions as people gain seniority.


    ITYM
    "is illegal in no states"
    HTH!

  • science_gone_bad 2007-09-05 13:54
    TheRubyWarlock:
    zip:
    My protection is being good at my job. You might want to try it sometime.


    Being good at your job is of no help if you work for shitbags. In fact you sound like the type of scumfuck who would benefit from employees having no rights and companies having them all.


    Totally right I've been layed off of two jobs where even the Vice President of the Company told the firing executive that it was a stupid thing to do because the two of us were the only people in the company that could run and maintain their application. They had contracts in place to provide the application and had already fired the rest of the team (we were the last two of ~100 people).

    They needed us off their books and were betting that their lawyers were better than their customer's laywers when the app tanked due to neglect/misuse.

    Talk about a bad taste left in my mouth
    CAPTCA: yummy

    NOT
  • seejay 2007-09-05 14:22
    Frenchier than thou:
    Well, I don't know about the boss's wife. Of course it could be construed as a breach of trust (whis is one of the Good Reasons in Canadian law), but does the boss really want to put it in writing on a document that will become a public property?


    Well if he wanted to prove that his wife was cheating in order to support a case to not pay alimony or a breach of a pre-nup, it might be worth it.

    Who knows... I've not had to go through divorce or deal with the major reprecussions of a cheating boyfriend/husband that a week of crying and lots of chocolate ice cream couldn't fix. :D

    -- Seejay
  • zip 2007-09-05 14:23
    TheRubyWarlock:
    zip:
    My protection is being good at my job. You might want to try it sometime.


    Being good at your job is of no help if you work for shitbags. In fact you sound like the type of scumfuck who would benefit from employees having no rights and companies having them all.


    Ok, then my protection is being good at my job and not working for shitbags. It's a lot simpler than hoping the government will help you keep your job.

    In fact, you sound like the type of clown who tries to strawman everyone who disagrees with him into some evil caricature that he's ready to argue against.

    Hint: as long as you can quit your job any time you damn well please, you don't have "no rights."
  • JohnFx 2007-09-05 14:59
    PCM2:
    Wait ... if you get laid off from your job, and then you find out that your old company is staffing the exact same position you held, only for half the pay ... isn't that totally illegal? At least, in CA I'm pretty sure it is.


    I'm no lawyer, but I seriously doubt this is illegal. I don't even think it qualifies as immoral. That is, unless it is some kind of union job. Most employment agreements can be terminated by either party equally for pretty much any reason as long as it isn't discriminatory or retaliatory for whistle blowing.

    This makes more sense if you flip the situation around. If you got an offer for an identical job with another employer for double the salary, I don't think you would consider it illegal or unethical to quit and take the other job.
  • Anon 2007-09-05 15:09
    Anon:
    Indeed. Everyone always has a nice safety net available in case they can't find that dream job.


    Look if you don't have a safety net it's probably your fault, unless you barely make a living wage or less than that. If I got fired this second I could live at my level of comfort for a year or so on savings alone. If needed I have the skills to work in three different fields, granted at a relatively low salary in all but one of them.

    If you live beyond your means, take massive loans on frivolous items (no you don't need a $30k car with maintenance costs up the wazoo when you still have $80k of student loans), don't save money or don't plan ahead then its your fault.

    TheRubyWarlock:
    Being good at your job is of no help if you work for shitbags. In fact you sound like the type of scumfuck who would benefit from employees having no rights and companies having them all.


    You have rights. You can quit. You're just as free to do that as the employer is to lay you off, more free actually. Find a different job, find a different employer. Do something about your problems. Stop complaining, stop expecting others to fix your problems for you, society isn't your mother. If you're too stupid or lazy (ie: don't improve your skills, etc.) for anyone else but a scumbag to hire you then likewise don't expect any sympathy.
  • DWalker59 2007-09-05 15:27
    DrkMatter:
    Firing someone and hiring that same person again for a lower salary is illegal in most states where labor laws make it mandatory to give incremental raises/working conditions as people gain seniority. For example, in Quebec, the minimum vacation time is two weeks for anyone with under five years of seniority, three weeks after. Some employers try to cheat out of this system by firing employees then hiring them for the exact same position, minus the seniority benefits. This is an illegal practice.


    Perhaps in most states in Canada, but raises are not mandated by law in most states in the US. If you know of any such laws, please point me to the wording of the actual law.

    Jobs covered under a collective bargaining (union) agreement are a different story.

    Tinkerghost: there might be a legal difference between firing and laying off; however, for many companies, they could get rid of one employee and call it a firing or a layoff, at their whim. "Layoffs" make me think of assembly line auto-workers and coal miners, not programmers.
  • DWalker59 2007-09-05 15:32
    Tinkerghost:
    California law allows companies to employ people "at will" and can fire them for no reason, and then hire a replacement at minimum wage.

    There is a big legal difference between firing & laying off. Part of it's the statistics the state uses to handle employment, part of it is the level of benefits your eligable for. IE, layed off employees in many states are elligable for a retraining budget - fired ones are not.
    Hence, laying someone off & rehiring for the same posisition defrauds the state of the value of the retraining.


    "Defrauds the state of the value of the retraining" ???

    Does the company have to pay for the retraining? I thought the state paid for it. If so, then the state is not being defrauded out of anything.

    Also, you said "laying someone off ... defrauds the state of the value of the retraining budget". Don't you mean "firing" instead of "laying off", since fired employees are not eligible for the retraining?
  • Anonymous Coward 2007-09-05 15:58
    All along I thought "mei you guanxi" meant something like "it doesn't matter" when it really means "I'm not getting any"!

    Sincerely,

    Mortified in the Pac Rim

  • Jerim 2007-09-05 16:10
    "Laid off" is a technical term that means the company didn't want to fire you but was forced to because of financial difficulties. Because of those financial difficulties, if you are laid off, instead of fired, you can't get unemployment. Businesses pay into unemployment benefits system, and at the end of the year they get any unused money back. By laying someone off and then turning around and hiring anyone, it is considered fraud. Because not only does the company get a cheaper worker, they fraudulently get their unemployment money back.
  • Anon 2007-09-05 16:22
    Jerim:
    "Laid off" is a technical term that means the company didn't want to fire you but was forced to because of financial difficulties. Because of those financial difficulties, if you are laid off, instead of fired, you can't get unemployment. Businesses pay into unemployment benefits system, and at the end of the year they get any unused money back. By laying someone off and then turning around and hiring anyone, it is considered fraud. Because not only does the company get a cheaper worker, they fraudulently get their unemployment money back.


    Uhhm. It's the opposite. If you get fired or you quit you may be ineligible for unemployment benefits. If you are laid off then you are probably eligible.
  • Manders 2007-09-05 19:46
    Regarding the boring definition of intercourse... back when the United States Supreme Court was establishing itself, there was a case involving the regulation of commercial intercourse (the Stream of Commerce law if I remember correctly - early 1800s). During the debate one senator remarked that "...all forms of intercourse shall be regulated..." through and through by the end of the debate - risque at the time to say the least! Some words never see the end of their comical meanings.

    Reading that blurb reminded me of the famous Biology Lecture story of a sex ed. class in High School when, after learning semen is composed primarily of "sugars", a young lady ejaculated (look it up), "If it's made of sugar, why isn't it sweet?"

    CAPTCHA - selfcontrol... the one true final (and as yet unconquered) frontier for the majority of United States consumers.
  • Anonymous Bunny 2007-09-06 00:20
    Guanxi - it basically means whats said... but with the added thing of having clout.
  • Andrew 2007-09-06 02:50
    George Nacht:
    The story about firing experienced worker because of raise request is nasty, but still somewhat logical. My soon-to-be-father-in-law has been fired after twelwe years, becuase he insisted that the company where he worked is terribly understaffed ...
    No, I can´t explain.


    I work at a company where it is company policy to fire all people who ask for a pay rise. This is not a joke. (Stephen, if you're out there, we miss you.)

    These guys running this place are so cheap that I once interviewed and hired a System Admin with the following series of events: The guy was a genius. He had even done the very work that we required which was amazing considering how niche the work is. I even learnt a ton while interviewing him. He was a smart guy.
    He was hired. We would have been morons not to. Talent like that is rare. He resigned his old position. He even moved states so that he might work with us. The day before he started the boss where I work decided to save money by firing this guy.
    Now for the irony. We hired a completely inexperienced guy for half the price - although he is learning he sadly causes more problems than solves. But then we contracted an external team to help with the tasks. Net money spent is nearly three times the original guy's salary.
    (If the guy we "fired" is reading this then I apologise. I made the decision to hire you but I was outranked. There's nothing better than being powerless.)
  • EPE 2007-09-06 03:40
    You must be a mathematician...
  • EPE 2007-09-06 03:41
    Now quoting (I'm sorry):
    Dubie:
    I had intercourse with all of my customers


    Well, if he never had a customer, it's true that he had intercourse with all of them.

    You must be a mathematician...
  • Hans 2007-09-06 07:53
    James:
    When I read that last one, I'm picturing Kyle's cousin from the South Park episode "The Entity". "Now I have a headache from all that squinting" -- priceless!


    I have a serious question: does this sort of stuff happen for real? Do people really walk into an interview in the full knowledge they are utterly unqualified, and expect to bluff their way through it?

    I have helped with interviews in the past, and I've seen both good and bad candidates, but never quite someone like that.
  • former contractor 2007-09-06 08:11
    Once upon a time I was a contractor for one of the big boys. Everybody loved me at my sites, I got nothing but glowing reviews and the system was in balance. Then one of the executives of the company with which I had a contract got into a fight with one of the executives of the company to which I had been contracted and they eliminated about 1/2 of the contractors. Shortly after that the CEO of the contracting company came out and whined about how he couldn't find nearly enough people to fill all of the contract positions he had.
  • Uber 2007-09-06 09:52
    Well, in Spain if you're fired without any good reason, you get paid 45 days for every year you've worked for a company. This 45 days line is very flexible, so depending on your contract and negotiations you can get at least 32 days or top at 50 days.

    That guy was GREAT in cryptography but very bad at using metaphors :)

    CAPTCHA: atari... this is a new one XD
  • savar 2007-09-06 13:25
    Preskooldude:
    I had intercourse with all of my customers

    ...and this is why you should always translate by hand.


    That's what intercourse really means...40 years ago you could say something like that and nobody would snicker. Nowadays the meaning is overloaded to refer to a specific type of intercourse.
  • savar 2007-09-06 13:29
    RC Pinchey:

    I would hope it would just be supply and demand- if you don't offer enough money, no-one will take the job. I really can't see the need to legislate for it!


    Well.. it is Cali. They don't believe in market economics. They legislate everything. I would hate to live there. It's a shame because the scenery is so nice.
  • J. B. Rainsberger 2007-09-06 16:40
    zip:
    as long as you can quit your job any time you damn well please, you don't have "no rights."


    One of the simplest and smartest things I've read here in a while. It takes attention to arrange your personal finances in a way to be able to quit your job, but it's less difficult than most people think. I started with the book "Your Money or Your Life".
  • Joe 2007-09-06 17:37
    Hans:
    James:
    When I read that last one, I'm picturing Kyle's cousin from the South Park episode "The Entity". "Now I have a headache from all that squinting" -- priceless!


    I have a serious question: does this sort of stuff happen for real? Do people really walk into an interview in the full knowledge they are utterly unqualified, and expect to bluff their way through it?

    I have helped with interviews in the past, and I've seen both good and bad candidates, but never quite someone like that.


    I've been interviewing candidates for an open position on my team. We've had a few of them come in over the past 2 months that were absolute BS artists. When you read their resume and look at their work experience it seems legit on paper. Then I sit down with someone face to face and start getting into raw, technical details and all they can do is spit back the same phrases I used. It's frustrating, but the only way to gauge to what degree someone is familiar with a given technology.

    Any schmuck that's used Access before can tell you he "knows databases", but ask someone about O(n^2) runtime for a double nested FOR loop when iterating programmatically over a table, and you get a blank stare. *sigh*. I've had candidates with supposed SQL experience give me blank stares when I asked them about the difference between a LEFT JOIN and an INNER JOIN.

    captcha: waffles - not again.
  • Anon 2007-09-06 18:09
    savar:
    That's what intercourse really means...40 years ago you could say something like that and nobody would snicker. Nowadays the meaning is overloaded to refer to a specific type of intercourse.


    Not it means what people think it means, nothing more and nothing less. In other words it means the exact same thing it has always meant.

    Language changes and evolves, accept it.
  • Anon Fred 2007-09-07 10:37
    He was hired. We would have been morons not to. Talent like that is rare. He resigned his old position. He even moved states so that he might work with us. The day before he started the boss where I work decided to save money by firing this guy.

    Was this a search company in Somerville?

    I once got a job offer from a company for salary $X. I accepted it. I went in a few days early to sign the paperwork, and they were offering me a salary of $X-10000.

    I was pretty young and easily bullied, so I agreed, but on the way home that day I built up such a head of steam about the affair that I called the recruiter who set us up, and he said I probably shouldn't take the deal. (He cost himself money doing this, but earned my respect.) I quit before I started.

    Don't work for cheap people. Sure, they'll save money on external costs like printers and computers, but most technology companies have the great majority of their costs being their employees' salaries, and they can work on softening you the hardest.
  • Nex 2007-09-09 13:52
    How is it any of the government's business? Yea it's pretty crappy but the company needed to spend less on that position, in their opinion. If you start getting the government involved in wages and the like we will end up in a recession. Regardless of that, it's just immoral for government to involve themselves in private business matters like that.

    PCM2:
    Wait ... if you get laid off from your job, and then you find out that your old company is staffing the exact same position you held, only for half the pay ... isn't that totally illegal? At least, in CA I'm pretty sure it is.
  • Nex 2007-09-09 13:54
    That's funny I must have missed that "Nuke Australia " memo...

    Anon Fred:

    Also in Australia if you are made redundant then part of your termination payment is concessionaly taxed provided the termination is genuine.


    This is why we nuked you during the Korean War.

    U S A!! U S A!!
  • aib 2007-09-10 12:56
    From the article:

    ...
    But then I heard from this guy I was working with about a learn-from-home university.
    ...
    "Well, no," he replied, "now I have a headache from squinting."


    That's what happens when you don't go to an actual college and learn how to read badly printed exam papers properly...
  • Jack Napier 2007-09-11 18:06
    Well, the story about the guy who got canned and then the recruiter...well, pfft, who cares? Good luck to those assholes, because they have about a 0% chance of finding someone with high availability UNIX systems like that for $35k. I've seen all sorts of job positions where what they want and what they offer virtually garuntees it will never be filled. Bear in mind though, that sometimes this is just a political move to keep budget money.

    That said, I've got my own crap story that's similar: I was fed up with my contractor position and was throwing out my resume`. My department had high turnover.
    I get a call from a rival contracting company. They wanted to tell me about a position; the one I already had. And to top it off, they were offering 10% more.
  • Peter 2007-09-11 18:48
    Hans:
    I have a serious question: does this sort of stuff happen for real? Do people really walk into an interview in the full knowledge they are utterly unqualified, and expect to bluff their way through it?
    Yes. There are many people who think that they can sweet talk their way through life. Anything goes wrong? They have an excuse for it.
  • D 2007-09-13 16:44
    You think that is 'protection'? Good luck with that.
  • Mr. Been There 2007-09-24 13:14
    Never take a raise once you've put in your papers. If the company respected you properly (more importantly the management of the company) you would have already gotten your raise.

    To be offered a substantial raise at the last minute is unprofessional and means they just don't care...you're being raped.
  • ELIZA 2008-08-20 09:03
    Nex:
    How is it any of the government's business? Yea it's pretty crappy but the company needed to spend less on that position, in their opinion. If you start getting the government involved in wages and the like we will end up in a recession. Regardless of that, it's just immoral for government to involve themselves in private business matters like that.

    PCM2:
    Wait ... if you get laid off from your job, and then you find out that your old company is staffing the exact same position you held, only for half the pay ... isn't that totally illegal? At least, in CA I'm pretty sure it is.


    The state we are in now, a recession would be excellent news.
  • ELIZA 2009-10-30 00:05
    RC Pinchey:
    PCM2:
    Wait ... if you get laid off from your job, and then you find out that your old company is staffing the exact same position you held, only for half the pay ... isn't that totally illegal? At least, in CA I'm pretty sure it is.


    ...er... why would that be illegal, exactly? As long as it's above minimum wage, can't they offer whatever salary they like for a position?

    I would hope it would just be supply and demand- if you don't offer enough money, no-one will take the job. I really can't see the need to legislate for it!


    If people are so desperate for jobs that they will accept unsurvivably low pay, the government has to spend a lot of money running things called "soup-kitchens" and "free clinics" and cetera. Personally, I would ensure that everyone is given a sum of money large enough that they are not so far into poverty as to injure them or their family, or make them less employable or force them to steal to survive, but small enough that they have a strong incentive to work. On the other hand, a minimum wage, combined with a refundable negative-rate tax bracket, such as the Earned Income Benefit or the American Earned Income Tax Credit, and involuntary unemployment benefits is probably acceptable.

    However, I think that more germane is the fact that he was laid off rather than fired. Laying people off simply for not taking a pay cut used to be politically unacceptable Before Reagan, so it may have been made illegal not knowing that greed would one day be considered good, just like Texas made corporate donations illegal (at least in elections for state office) not knowing that one day the True Patriots such as Tom DeLay would be the ones in the pockets of amoral corporations. Firing for cause, yes, you can replace the offender with anyone you want at whatever rate, but I would imagine that layoffs would have to be for at least a minimum time, and give the laid-off workers first dibs on their old jobs at roughly the old salaries when the staff can again be justified.
  • ELIZA 2009-10-30 00:37
    TheRubyWarlock:
    Half of these horror stories is the exact reason why most countries are fucked up and don't have their priorities straight - the fact its legal for companies to string people along and pull this kind of shit is complete rubbish; the fact that when there ARE laws it's easy to circumvent is even worse. Too many laws to protect the company, and almost nothing to protect the employee. Bullshit. Complete fucking bullshit.

    Random832:
    Did you ever find out why the resumes kept getting deleted, and why the recruiters were told to leave?


    From what he hinted at in the story, probably because the CEO really WAS trying to discriminate against the minorities. So like a coward the company told the recruiters to leave the conference so the soon-to-be-ex-employees didn't find out any more dirt. That seems to be a common tactic: When you know you're doing something wrong, you cover it up so people can't ask questions.


    Fact of the day, discrimination against certain minorities is extremely serious, and it is far too common for companies burdened by anti-discrimination laws to find "creative" ways to get around them*.
    * http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=620a7a4dc8b8f2319c0f74fa1f746a0c
  • ELIZA 2009-10-30 01:19
    Nex:
    How is it any of the government's business? Yea it's pretty crappy but the company needed to spend less on that position, in their opinion. If you start getting the government involved in wages and the like we will end up in a recession. Regardless of that, it's just immoral for government to involve themselves in private business matters like that.

    PCM2:
    Wait ... if you get laid off from your job, and then you find out that your old company is staffing the exact same position you held, only for half the pay ... isn't that totally illegal? At least, in CA I'm pretty sure it is.


    Is that not roughly what they said about just about every piece of pro-labour regulation before it was introduced?
    Ending slavery? Violates the "rights" of slaveholders
    Ending child labour? A "luxury" that is allegedly unaffordable for the Third World
    Ending the union between commercial and investment banks? It would drive all finance to London or Paris
    Ending segregation? But how do we expect children to LEARN whith those THINGS in the room; but we cannot just force people to teach/serve/employ blacks; but no-one would shop at a place that served blacks
    Protecting the rights of employees? But we cannot force employers to treat their employees properly, it would cause a recession and it is immoral

    My view, simply, is watch me.
  • С��ʪ�� 2010-02-06 11:48
    ����С��ʪ�� ��<a href=http://www.artopc.com/productsshow.asp?id=25>С��ʪ�� </a>��ҳƵ����ѵ�¼,С��ʪ�� ��˾,С��ʪ�� ��ƹ�˾,С��ʪ�� ���޹�˾,С��ʪ�� ��չ���޹�˾��ͨ<a href=http://www.yzxuzhan.com/>С����������</a>]��˾���ൺ֪����С�����������˾,�ൺС����������,�ൺС������������ƹ�˾,�ൺС���������������Ҫ�ṩ<a href=http://www.jitian-cn.com/prodshow.asp?ProdID=114>СҰ</a>��СҰϵ�е�СҰ��Ʒ���ṩ�й���СҰ��СҰ�����Ϣ��ѯ�����߶���СҰ�ȷ���ȫ˼<a href=http://www.jitian-cn.com/prodshow.asp?ProdID=789>СҰ</a>���豱��СҰ��˾|����СҰ��˾|�Ϻ�СҰ��˾|���СҰ��˾|����СҰ��˾|����СҰ��˾
  • cindy 2011-01-23 22:41
    find for all kinds of watches and handbags .
    A Lange & Sohne watches
    Audemars Piguet watches
    Ulysse Nardin watches
    Vacheron Constantin watches
    Michele Watches
    Ebel watches
    And so on

    http://www.replica038.com
  • steve 2013-01-23 13:58
    Not a single thing was filled in on the paper. Apparently, the font-size was too small, so John offered to reprint it.
    Actually, I suspect the guy was hoping to sue for ADA violations, claiming that he'd be denied the job because of his disability. Offering to make reasonable accommodations was the right call - he clearly didn't want the job.
  • Who? 2014-08-26 07:51
    ELIZA:
    Nex:
    How is it any of the government's business? Yea it's pretty crappy but the company needed to spend less on that position, in their opinion. If you start getting the government involved in wages and the like we will end up in a recession. Regardless of that, it's just immoral for government to involve themselves in private business matters like that.

    PCM2:
    Wait ... if you get laid off from your job, and then you find out that your old company is staffing the exact same position you held, only for half the pay ... isn't that totally illegal? At least, in CA I'm pretty sure it is.


    The state we are in now, a recession would be excellent news.


    Your mum's vagina is a recession.