• Wikipedia (unregistered) in reply to Pat
    'Two Weeks' is Colin's new nickname because he only worked for two weeks.

    And if he had a shed and decided to build a second shed he'd be Colin "Two Sheds" M.

    ObCaptcha: secundum

  • James (unregistered) in reply to WhiskeyJack
    WhiskeyJack:
    Ian Menzies:
    Colin chose the former.
    I think you mean he chose the latter, unless you are implying that he decided the risk of losing the check was worse than getting chewed out by the CTO and there is a Part 2 coming in which he gives the CTO an earful and gets the original developer canned.

    No, I'm fairly sure he chose the former. Look at the way the wording is for the latter option. They'll promise to mail you a cheque, using a non-trackable, non-priority mail service, and ask you to sign a waiver disclaiming their responsibility should that cheque somehow get "lost in the mail". Do you really think he would have ever seen that cheque?

    I'd withstand a bit of yelling, especially if I knew I was justified, in order to make sure I got that money.

    Waitaminute, "withstand a bit of yelling"? Maybe it's just my personality, but I would have been blue in the face screaming every obscenity I know (and I was in the drum line in my high school marching band, so that's quite a few) at that CTO for letting his development team behave the way they do. If anybody was going to be on the receiving end of a dressing-down when I went back to pick up my check, it would have been that suit. What's he going to do about it, fire me again?

  • WC (unregistered)

    Option 3: Have his lawyer send a notice.

    They can't legally withhold his check after they owe it to him. There are actually laws that guarantee they have to pay when they are supposed to, and he can sue if they don't. Any company stupid enough to get into a lawsuit about that deserves the shitstorm that results.

    Screaming's great and all, but NOT choosing their 2 bullshit options is even better.

  • (cs) in reply to GF
    GF:
    Godwin:
    The Real WTF (TM) is that it should be "Two Weeks' Notice" - with a lovely apostrophe!
    Does the notice belong to the two weeks?

    "I will be leaving after a period of two weeks"... "notice of leaving in two weeks"... "two weeks notice".

    Yes, plural possessive is correct -- if it's in a sentence like: The company requires two weeks' notice if you resign.

    You could also replace this with The company requires one day's notice if you resign.

    A slightly different form of this might be The company requires a one-day notice before you resign. (Or "a two-week notice) In which case, perhaps one might argue another correct but restructured form would be a hyphenated, singular "Two-week."

  • tezoatlipoca (unregistered) in reply to WhiskeyJack
    WhiskeyJack:
    Ian Menzies:
    Colin chose the former.
    I think you mean he chose the latter, unless you are implying that he decided the risk of losing the check was worse than getting chewed out by the CTO and there is a Part 2 coming in which he gives the CTO an earful and gets the original developer canned.

    No, I'm fairly sure he chose the former. Look at the way the wording is for the latter option. They'll promise to mail you a cheque, using a non-trackable, non-priority mail service, and ask you to sign a waiver disclaiming their responsibility should that cheque somehow get "lost in the mail". Do you really think he would have ever seen that cheque?

    I'd withstand a bit of yelling, especially if I knew I was justified, in order to make sure I got that money.

    Not only that but since he'd have to go in to sign the waiver anyway, either way he's going back in to get yelled at by someone.

    Ethically gray (maybe not, if there's non NDA, patents or non-compete language involved), but in cases like this I'd be really tempted to go out and rewrite the application correctly and non-WTFy and buy the company's Adwords :)

  • (cs)

    <sulu>Oh my...</sulu>

  • Teh Irish Gril Riot (unregistered)

    I'd have gone in to pick up my check in person also.

    Let the guy yell all he wants. I would just stand there with a poker face until he ran out of wind and then say "Okay. I'd like my check now." I'd delight in refusing to reciprocate with an emotionally charged response. From that day forward the pointy-haired CTO will always wonder "What was that guy thinking? I let him have it and he just stood there observing me rant." If Colin were 'detached' enough in his demeanor the effect would have been... creepy.

    Then Colin would have two things. His check and another story for us WTF readers.

  • (cs) in reply to gabba
    gabba:

    Did you read the article? Their platform was Linux. Exchange SDK is Windows-only.

    Others mentioned using POP3 or IMAP. Many or most sites don't enable either one.

    They were running a virtual windows on those linux machines. They could have used the windows-only exchange SDK on that virtual windows machine.

    So what if most sites don't enable POP or IMAP? Since they're running the Exchange server, they can enable it if they need it.

  • FlySwat (unregistered) in reply to gabba

    Um no,

    Everything they needed to do is exposed and documented in a nice set of API's.

  • (cs)
    The lead developer was notoriously cagey, and meticulous about his code. So much so that he wanted to keep his code a secret from everybody. After all, if he checked his code in to source control, that would mean that other developers could *gasp* see it, and perhaps *double gasp* maintain it. So instead of code, he'd check in compiled assemblies.

    Of all the WTFs in the article, this is the one that I find the hardest to accept. If I believed this really happened, I'd probably have to go cry.

  • MouseUsingDudeWithNipples (unregistered) in reply to FlySwat
    FlySwat:
    Um no,

    Everything they needed to do is exposed and documented in a nice set of API's.

    If by 'nice' you mean "possessing, marked by, or demanding great or excessive precision and delicacy" then I agree with you.

    However, if you mean 'nice' as in "pleasing or agreeable" Then I have to disagree.

  • MB (unregistered)
    There isn't any indication that Colin expressed his frustrations -- things got rough and his first reaction was to just quit.

    Here's the thing, you reach a point in your life where you are hopefully a) easily able to move job to job because you are good at what you do and b) know how to judge a situation properly. He saw that the job was crap and had the ability to walk right out with worrying(I assume) about not being able to make rent etc. Life is too short to have to constantly butt heads with some jerkoff at work.

    Most employers understand that there is one job in a lifetime where you just couldn't hold on for a year because of a PITA coworker.

  • sf (unregistered)
    1) Pick up the check in person, get yelled at by the CTO. 2) Receive check by regular, un-trackable mail (as long as Colin signed a statement releasing the company from any responsibility if the check mysteriously didn't turn up at his house).

    Colin chose the former.

    Oh yeah, definitely choose the former. Since that bridge is on fire anyway there's nothing stopping you from playing a little "Bridge on the River Kwai." I'd let him have it right back.

  • trailmax (unregistered)

    haha the real wtf is in comments here -)

  • (cs)

    Colin made the right decision. Thankfully he didn't waste away years of his career at a bad place.

  • Edward Royce (unregistered) in reply to trailmax
    trailmax:
    haha the real wtf is in comments here -)

    No the real WTF is that we're getting a lesson on English punctuation along with the tech stuff.

  • Joe (unregistered) in reply to Joe
    Joe:
    Perhaps TRWTF is that they were actually able to sell this Rube Goldberg design.

    Remember that there's a very important distinction between how shrink wrap software works and how it sells. Just because it's ASS on the inside doesn't mean it won't sell. So long as it does what it's supposed to, customers don't know. The impact is more directly felt by the company maintaining it. Systems like this are a nightmare to maintain or change. But so far as the customer knows, it does what it claims. Heck, if the support they provide is friendly and prompt, customers are FURTHER tricked.

    And this my friends is why I don't use black boxes at work. If I can't take a peek under the hood at the source code, I don't trust it. That's a general rule, stuff like Exchange does its job enough to justify buying it.

  • Harrow (unregistered) in reply to Dave
    Dave:
    Captcha: sagaciter*

    *Cos it seems to be tradition to note at the end of the post here :P

    That tradition is deprecated.

    Said tradition arose because at one time the captcha strings were dictionary words, and occasionally a commenter would be presented with a word that was ironically related to the article, and he would remark on it.

    Soon other commenters were stretching to find anything humorous to say about their captcha strings. As the reasons for quoting captchas became less obvious, many commenters, especially newbies, concluded that there was a tradition of captcha quoting for its own sake.

    Then Alex changed the captcha strings to non-words, probably to thwart dictionary attacks. Thus the last vestiges of any reason to quote captchas have faded into the dream time. But some people still quote them.

    I call it "cargo cult captcha quoting".

    -Harrow.

  • Franz Kafka (unregistered) in reply to Licky Lindsay
    Licky Lindsay:
    The lead developer was notoriously cagey, and meticulous about his code. So much so that he wanted to keep his code a secret from everybody. After all, if he checked his code in to source control, that would mean that other developers could *gasp* see it, and perhaps *double gasp* maintain it. So instead of code, he'd check in compiled assemblies.

    Of all the WTFs in the article, this is the one that I find the hardest to accept. If I believed this really happened, I'd probably have to go cry.

    Seen it. In mz case, it was a moron who checked code in sporadically because he didn't quite grok source control. I'd ask him to check in a working client and he'd email me a jar that sort of worked.

  • Richard C Haven (unregistered) in reply to gabba
    gabba:
    So they had to jump through some hoops to get around Microsoft's closed, opaque interfaces? The WTF ain't on the part of Colin's employer here, folks.

    Interfaces are SUPPOSED to be opaque: that's what encapsulation means.

    Yes, the Exchange MAPI interfaces are weird; yes, I have used COM automation to drive a "daemon" instance of Outlook instead of going straight to the Exchange server (and I knew it was wrong). At least we did it from a Windows machine exposed as a web service.

    The WTF is allowing anyone to refuse to check in source.

  • BlueCollarAstronaut (unregistered) in reply to Licky Lindsay
    Licky Lindsay:
    The lead developer was notoriously cagey, and meticulous about his code. So much so that he wanted to keep his code a secret from everybody. After all, if he checked his code in to source control, that would mean that other developers could *gasp* see it, and perhaps *double gasp* maintain it. So instead of code, he'd check in compiled assemblies.

    Of all the WTFs in the article, this is the one that I find the hardest to accept. If I believed this really happened, I'd probably have to go cry.

    I haven't seen anything quite that bad, but I worked with a guy who put just about as much of his code into one file as he possibly could, and then religiously monitored our source control logs to see if anyone had touched his file. He came storming into my cubicle a time or two demanding to know why I had the audacity to mess with his code.

    I remember one time having to carefuly explain that I had simply added an indexed accessor to one of the many collection classes he had buried in that file (which he knew I was trying to integrate with), because once items were added, it was near impossible to find them again the way he had the class set up.

    All the while, he glared at me with a paranoid suspicion.

    He was quite the teamplayer :)

  • Ninjamobile (unregistered) in reply to Franz Kafka
    Franz Kafka:
    Licky Lindsay:
    The lead developer was notoriously cagey, and meticulous about his code. So much so that he wanted to keep his code a secret from everybody. After all, if he checked his code in to source control, that would mean that other developers could *gasp* see it, and perhaps *double gasp* maintain it. So instead of code, he'd check in compiled assemblies.

    Of all the WTFs in the article, this is the one that I find the hardest to accept. If I believed this really happened, I'd probably have to go cry.

    Seen it. In mz case, it was a moron who checked code in sporadically because he didn't quite grok source control. I'd ask him to check in a working client and he'd email me a jar that sort of worked.

    Me too. I "worked with" a colleague of mine on a project once. Every time I found something that could be fixed or done better in the code she told me, "Don't worry about that, I'll fix it." By the time I was done familiarizing myself with her code, I had nothing to do... :|

  • foxyshadis (unregistered) in reply to FlySwat
    FlySwat:
    Um no,

    Everything they needed to do is exposed and documented in a nice set of API's.

    To be reasonably fair to the company, Exchange's CDO Rule API (and the underlying MAPI properties that you need to use) is impossible to find complete documentation for. Some of it comes from the readme, some from example scripts and forum posts, some of it was pretty much only findable via OutlookSpy. I suppose I should be kind and post the working scripts to increase the body of example scripts out there.

    The CDO Rule API is deprecated, which may be why, but there's no new API to replace it.

    It's still dumb to just say the hell with it and go with Outlook instead, and insane to use Linux & Perl for it at all.

  • Anon Fred (unregistered) in reply to HockeyGod
    HockeyGod:
    At least he got paid. I once left a company and when I asked for my last check they said "by our calculations you spent X hours in the bathroom over the last 1.5 years, as well as Y hours in the break room getting a soda from the vending machine. We're keeping this amount of money to make up for all of that wasted time.
    Pick up the phone now. Call your state department of labor. Tell them exactly what you told us. They will call the employer up and tell them they need to pay, and pay fast. You will have your money within a week.

    You won't even to call a lawyer to deal with these shitheads.

  • Marc B (unregistered)

    I once had an employer who tried the old "we're going to make it very hard for you to get your last paycheck" scam. I went directly to the state Department of Employment. Three days later, the DOE had a check for me. And then the DOE decided to audit the company employment records; a few weeks later, I received an even bigger check, apparently the DOE decided that they owed a lot of employees a shitload of overtime.

    Did I laugh last? You know it.

  • (cs)

    Looking at the title and taking a quick glimpse at the picture ehm.. flowchart.. was enough for me. I don't need to read the rest ;)

  • T604 (unregistered) in reply to BlueCollarAstronaut

    I worked for a company once had a similar issue. The company had one application being used for a contract written by a prima-donna coder and they wanted to use a modified version as a demo for a proposal. I was tasked with modifying a copy of the existing app. He refused to give me a copy of the code (never mind the fact there was no source control). My manager tried to talk sense in to his manager and finally gave up. I left shortly after for greener pastures and unsuprisingly I hear from a former coworker the office is being shutdown.

    I can only imagine these people are embarassed of their code?

  • (cs) in reply to Harrow
    Harrow:
    Dave:
    Captcha: sagaciter*

    *Cos it seems to be tradition to note at the end of the post here :P

    I call it "cargo cult captcha quoting".

    -Harrow.

    WINNER!

  • Emobot (unregistered) in reply to Tachyon
    Tachyon:
    This puts swamps vb monstrosity to shame...

    not really

    the system described was at least running on stable commercial -grade software platforms that were capable of communicating with one another. Clunky as the system may have been it was at least usable (I'm not saying it was good by any stretch of the imagination)

    ... SSDS has no corporate users (and never will) and is totally unfit for any purpose

  • secundum (unregistered) in reply to Tachyon

    Calling swamp's code "VB" is like calling a rusted burnt pinto with no motor a "car."

  • GregP (unregistered) in reply to T604
    T604:
    I worked for a company once had a similar issue. The company had one application being used for a contract written by a prima-donna coder and they wanted to use a modified version as a demo for a proposal. I was tasked with modifying a copy of the existing app. He refused to give me a copy of the code (never mind the fact there was no source control). My manager tried to talk sense in to his manager and finally gave up. I left shortly after for greener pastures and unsuprisingly I hear from a former coworker the office is being shutdown.

    I can only imagine these people are embarassed of their code?

    I think that goes well beyond embarassed.

    Although I personally think people who don't realize their code is terrible are worse.

  • Anonymous User (unregistered) in reply to QuinnFazigu
    QuinnFazigu:
    morry:
    I can totally sympathize with his decision to leave, but I think the final action should have been to do his damnedest to kick the heels out from under the lead developer

    Colin could have tried harder to change things. It sounds as if he realized the lead dev was stubborn and gave up. The boss's reaction wasn't professional, but wasn't too far off with his likewise accusations.

    If the lead dev wasn't allowing Colin to do any useful work, he should have brought that up with the CTO instead of just quitting. There isn't any indication that Colin expressed his frustrations -- things got rough and his first reaction was to just quit.

    This. Definitely this.

  • MK (unregistered)

    "After that, Colin had to fight with HR and the CTO for several months to squeeze a paycheck out of the company for his few weeks of service."

    I once had a company tell me that I had to jump through several hoops to get my last check. I smiled, went home, called a lawyer. The next day a fedex man delivered it.

    The one thing you don't fuck around with is someone's pay check.

  • Walleye (unregistered) in reply to MB

    [quote user="MB"][quote] Most employers understand that there is one job in a lifetime where you just couldn't hold on for a year because of a PITA coworker. [/quote]

    Or a PETA cow-irker.

  • Fedaykin (unregistered)

    I would actually say that using Linux as the host O/S and running windows in a VM wasn't necessarily a WTF. There are many advantages to running Windows in a VM, like the ability to actually move the O/S to better hardware without a major headache, disaster recovery, security, flexibility, etc.

    Of course, they probably did if for a stupid reason like wanting to be "cool" and run Linux "instead" of Windows, but that doesn't make what they did a defacto WTF.

  • Brian White (unregistered) in reply to vt_mruhlin
    vt_mruhlin:
    Surely it wouldn't be that hard to write a method to check whether or not there was a dialog in Outlook and blindly click OK.

    There is a program to do this. It's called "ClickYes":

    http://www.contextmagic.com/express-clickyes/

    ClickYes Software is your helping hand in solving issues caused by these Outlook warnings. There are two versions available at the moment: Express ClickYes and ClickYes Pro.

    Both of them work in the background. You will hardly ever remember of ClickYes once it was installed and configured. Both of them are for allowing your email application work without any delays. But though they are very similar by name, they are completely different from each other by design.

  • Peets (unregistered) in reply to gabba

    That 's the whole prob with anything involving Windows: the easiest way is to work with their interfaces. It is DESIGNED to be problematic otherwise.

    Needing 70k lines of glue code is a cast iron hint that you're barking up the wrong tree (and, IMHO, that you have failed to define and then structure the problem before you rolled up your sleeves and got stuck into coding a "solution").

    I'm a big fan of Open Source, but here it simply made no sense at all. IMHO it serves more as a demonstration that you have to remain flexible in the platform you choose - you can't always win.

  • Get Paid (unregistered) in reply to HockeyGod
    HockeyGod:
    At least he got paid. I once left a company and when I asked for my last check they said "by our calculations you spent X hours in the bathroom over the last 1.5 years, as well as Y hours in the break room getting a soda from the vending machine. We're keeping this amount of money to make up for all of that wasted time.

    It would have been nice to ask for that in writing. People are much braver when they think they are speaking informally than when writing in some sort of LEGALLY traceable manner.

    I suppose you could have asked if they were docking everyone's pay equally or if you were being singled out, but I have to say I like the call to the Dept. of Employment best. :)

  • SomeCoder (unregistered) in reply to Emobot
    Emobot:
    Tachyon:
    This puts swamps vb monstrosity to shame...

    not really

    the system described was at least running on stable commercial -grade software platforms that were capable of communicating with one another. Clunky as the system may have been it was at least usable (I'm not saying it was good by any stretch of the imagination)

    ... SSDS has no corporate users (and never will) and is totally unfit for any purpose

    I think I missed the original Swamp VB code discussion. Can someone provide a summary or a link?

  • troels (unregistered) in reply to Burned
    Burned:
    Is this sarcastic? Just curious as I'm taking some time to learn RoR. If there are any serious WTFs in RoR I'd like to know now.
    Yes. The fact that it's RoR. Trust me. Don't go there.

    Trust me. Don't trust someone, who says "Trust me".

  • (cs) in reply to Harrow
    Harrow:
    I call it "cargo cult captcha quoting".

    -Harrow.

    I like that concept.

    And I'm not going to ask what it implies about the general level of intelligence, initiative, wit, or other useful mental qualities in our industry. Oh no. That would be too depressing.

  • (cs) in reply to Brian White
    Brian White:
    vt_mruhlin:
    Surely it wouldn't be that hard to write a method to check whether or not there was a dialog in Outlook and blindly click OK.

    There is a program to do this. It's called "ClickYes":

    lol. When I first read this, I immediately thought of Brice Richard from JOS and his ridiculous code that invoked a program like this!

  • Herohtar (unregistered)

    TRWTF is that they forwarded a port for the VNC/Remote Desktop instead of just tunneling via their SSH connection.

  • Laz (unregistered) in reply to QuinnFazigu
    QuinnFazigu:
    If the lead dev wasn't allowing Colin to do any useful work, he should have brought that up with the CTO instead of just quitting.
    Why waste his time? Management upstream from Colin was either unaware of their lead developer's behavior (marking them as painfully clueless), or knew but didn't think it was a problem (marking them as utterly incompetent). And Colin's interview with the CTO implies it was a fairly small company, so the culture in his chain of command was probably in sync with the culture of the company as a whole.

    Anyone who thinks they can singlehandedly repair this kind of trainwreck -- especially as a subordinate developer whose "help" is going to be completely unsolicited -- either gets off on the dynamics of interpersonal chaos or needs to consider joining Geek-Anon. Moving on from a situation like this doesn't indicate laziness or cowardice -- it indicates sanity.

  • (cs) in reply to Harrow
    Harrow:
    Dave:
    Captcha: sagaciter*

    *Cos it seems to be tradition to note at the end of the post here :P

    That tradition is deprecated.

    Said tradition arose because at one time the captcha strings were dictionary words, and occasionally a commenter would be presented with a word that was ironically related to the article, and he would remark on it.

    Soon other commenters were stretching to find anything humorous to say about their captcha strings. As the reasons for quoting captchas became less obvious, many commenters, especially newbies, concluded that there was a tradition of captcha quoting for its own sake.

    Then Alex changed the captcha strings to non-words, probably to thwart dictionary attacks. Thus the last vestiges of any reason to quote captchas have faded into the dream time. But some people still quote them.

    I call it "cargo cult captcha quoting".

    -Harrow.

    You got it mostly right. We had a pool of maybe 30 words, all of which were deliberately chosen. Most of the words could be tangentially related to any article we post - words like "deprecated," "riaa," "overflow," "codemonkey," etc. Then we started getting useless comments that would be along the lines of "LOL nice article. captcha: whatever", or people only posting the captcha text. We generally deleted those.

    So instead we grabbed some random Latin (or something) words that were boring enough that people would be less compelled to include their captcha word in comments.

    The change had nothing to do with spam. We do get spam comments (generally on older articles), but I think it's some poor sod that's manually posting each one. So, uh, if you happen to be looking for World of Warcraft gold, read some comments on articles from months past.

  • (cs) in reply to Franz Kafka
    Franz Kafka:
    Seen it. In mz case, it was a moron who checked code in sporadically because he didn't quite grok source control. I'd ask him to check in a working client and he'd email me a jar that sort of worked.

    I've seen variations of that. Including a project where the developers check in both source and binaries cause the people pulling them out of the other end of the SCM alimentary canal didn't know how to use the compiler. But I don't think I've seen anybody who was so paranoid of other people at the same company messing with his code that he refused to check it in. It's like closed source carried to the individual level.

    captcha: none, 'cause I'm registered, bitches

  • phleabo (unregistered) in reply to Harrow
    Harrow:
    Dave:
    Captcha: sagaciter*

    *Cos it seems to be tradition to note at the end of the post here :P

    That tradition is deprecated.

    Said tradition arose because at one time the captcha strings were dictionary words, ... Then Alex changed the captcha strings to non-words, probably to thwart dictionary attacks.

    I call it "cargo cult captcha quoting".

    -Harrow.

    Much as I like "cargo cult captcha quoting, I should point out that sagaciter is a dictionary word. It's merely from a Latin dictionary.

    captcha: amet (the 3rd person subjunctive form of amare)

  • (cs) in reply to Edward Royce
    Edward Royce:
    Joe:
    Perhaps TRWTF is that they were actually able to sell this Rube Goldberg design.

    I'm sorry to say that there are a lot of such weird "systems" out there.

    I wonder if there's a potential business in advising companies when their dev teams, PMs or projects are just total and complete nonsense.

    I'd like to invoke Peter Drucker and point out that this "eccentric" behavior on the part of the lead developer and the bullying CTO are symptoms of a crap work system. This is the responsibility of management. It sounds from the OP that the management in this case isn't actually managing anything. I'm not calling for micro-management, but there needs to be enough standards in place so that the team gets on with its work. While consultants could aid in getting things straightened out, it's up to management to keep it straight and enforce well thought out rules (e.g.: best practices if appropriate to the environment).

    This is why managers whether in IT or software development need to understand not only coffee mugs, TPS reports and how to look good in suspenders, but also proper software development practices (no TRWTF architectures) and tools (e.g.:SCM used for source control) and the dynamics of a software development team (e.g.: how to mitigate the problems of tinfoil hat Leads).

  • Fnord Prefect (unregistered) in reply to Franz Kafka
    Franz Kafka:
    Licky Lindsay:
    The lead developer was notoriously cagey, and meticulous about his code. So much so that he wanted to keep his code a secret from everybody. After all, if he checked his code in to source control, that would mean that other developers could *gasp* see it, and perhaps *double gasp* maintain it. So instead of code, he'd check in compiled assemblies.
    Of all the WTFs in the article, this is the one that I find the hardest to accept. If I believed this really happened, I'd probably have to go cry.
    Seen it. In mz case, it was a moron who checked code in sporadically because he didn't quite grok source control. I'd ask him to check in a working client and he'd email me a jar that sort of worked.
    BTDTGTTS.

    Worked once with a developer that refused to check in anything at all until his code was absolutely perfect. The team lead asked him to check in what he had so that this module could be integrated with the rest of the project... delay, delay, delay...

    In the end, we just grabbed it off his machine, then threw out the twelve months worth of 'work' the guy had put in and rewrote it in a couple of weeks.

    Ah, lots of WTF moments at that place.

  • kingjoebob (unregistered) in reply to snoofle
    snoofle:
    HockeyGod:
    At least he got paid. I once left a company and when I asked for my last check they said "by our calculations you spent X hours in the bathroom over the last 1.5 years, as well as Y hours in the break room getting a soda from the vending machine. We're keeping this amount of money to make up for all of that wasted time.
    That's probably illegal - you could make a very good case against them in court. And before the flames begin, yes, this IS one of those cases where you push for your rights, especially if it's a significant amount of money! See: (assuming USA) Federal Department of Labor.

    I had something like this happen to me on a contract. The client decided that I did not deserve my last paycheck, so I gave them 2 options pay me by end of business or I call the state wage and labor board and they get an anal exam courtesy of the state. My check was messengered over.

Leave a comment on “Two Weeks Notice”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article