How legal Is This

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Before i start my rant i have ot ask how big a company is ming talking about? It seems as though it is kind of small. I can see where the up and quitting of an employees screws the co. Here i am talking a giant corporation. Its a hospital with many campsuses. These larger companies i dont see being hurt by the up and quitiing of a day laborer.
In my profession i have agreed to be screwed on a daily basises. Just by showing up at work. You see we dont have a choice if there is no one to come in and relieve us, we will be charged with patient abandoment if we leave with o one to replace us . If there is no one to give us a lunch break to bad so sad, if we get off at 3 pm after an 8 hr shift and there is no one to take over we are stuck. How fair is this i ask ya? the company expects you to suck it up and take it and for the most part we do. When you get into my private life and start meaniless crap like u smell of smoke ur in trouble and can be fired is were i draw the line.
I got into it with the business degreed mgr of the Operating room. I told him look man get off our backs. There are a few drs that also smoke and come in smelling of smoke have u threatened them as much as u are harassing the known smokers? He said no i cant do that, they are our customers too? I was like wtf.. I talked to one of the smoking drs and he laughed his @33 off. I said this is insane u can smoke cause ur a dr?? Any way my agency called and told me i needed to abide by the rules they(hospital) set. I asked how can i possible do that? My husband smokes and he doesnt work for you or them, I finally told them ok ya know what i am tired of this crap and will seek employment where i am not smelled when i walk in the door. I told my agency look i work for you and u make dam good money off me if u dont start to back us up i will go to another agency.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Dont get me wrong i can understand the hospital wanting the non smoking enviorment, but i think they have gone way to far when they give whack job employees the right to b**** about the price of tea in china.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Flubber


If I don't earn what I think I should, I would find another opportunity and then leave. If you cannot find another opprtunity that pays what you think you should get, your expectations may be too high.

But it sounds like you are getting a mixed message -- ie "you are crucial" and "no raise for you"-- perhaps the reason you are so crucial is that you have been doing a crap job for little money that other people won't do ??

My prediction was vindicated...they did exactly that. I'm the man who's handy in a crisis...but despite the fact that my colleagues really value what I do, management seem to be wholly indifferent. And this is the thing that now makes me want to leave - management indifference. And every week that goes by there, it feels more and more like a them-and-us culture. I would have no qualms at telling them to stick their job...

[-Jrabbit]

Right on, Mrs. T!!!!!!!

You have it exactly right, girl.

And btw if they admit to overlooking the docs who smell of smoke, they're staring down the barrel of a discriminatory employment practices. (The only problem will be documenting it. You need statements made in public, or memos, emails, or willing witnesses.)

[Ming]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
Before i start my rant i have ot ask how big a company is ming talking about? It seems as though it is kind of small. I can see where the up and quitting of an employees screws the co. Here i am talking a giant corporation.

I saw it happen all the time when I worked for a large "corporate" company that I worked at for 20+ years, and now at the midsized company I work for.
As a matter of fact, it was worse at the large company. We invested more time and money into their training

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
You see we dont have a choice if there is no one to come in and relieve us, we will be charged with patient abandoment if we leave with o one to replace us . If there is no one to give us a lunch break to bad so sad, if we get off at 3 pm after an 8 hr shift and there is no one to take over we are stuck. How fair is this i ask ya? the company expects you to suck it up and take it and for the most part we do. When you get into my private life and start meaniless crap like u smell of smoke ur in trouble and can be fired is were i draw the line.

You might want to check with a labor lawyer or with the state labor commission to see if there is a remedy for working you without breaks, and working you beyond your shift's end (I hope you're getting paid overtime for that).

The labor commission will probably handle your case for free if there's a statutory violation. The lawyer might handle it if the law provides for attorney fees (but you live in Texas, which isn't the friendliest to its employees, so there probably aren't any).

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
Right on, Mrs. T!!!!!!!

You have it exactly right, girl.

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by Sikander
Making it hard for employers to adjust their workforce as needed eventually creates a bar to hiring.

See, this sort of logic is so common in these dabates. It seems sound in itself, but it's so vague that it's impossible to prove or disprove.

The recent changes in Aus IR law mostly hinge on the idea of reducing employment costs in order to increase job opportunities. So unfair dismissal, sick days, overtime etc. are suddenly up for grabs rather than remaining standard accross the industry.

It sounds logical, but there's nothing factual to say job opportunites will increase in correllaton to eliminating standard conditions. But then, it's a democratically elected government. Union member ship is eroding, yada, yada. So if workers are being asked to bend over more than ever, they can hardly be said to be doing it without consent.

When every employee is a permanent hire or is extremely expensive to fire employers will outsource, hire temporary employees etc.

Again, this sounds like conjecture.

It also sems to contradict your first statement. ie. Employers will keep right on hiring, they just go for the lowest cost solution - which is what you'd expect anyhow.

But, you're right casualisation of the workforce is another worrying phenomenon. Without annual leave for example, some people simply go on working to the detriment of their own health.

[Alexander's Horse]

You could just quit smoking...

*runs*

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Terra Nullius

See, this sort of logic is so common in these dabates. It seems sound in itself, but it's so vague that it's impossible to prove or disprove.

Take a look at the unemployment rates of various western states vs their labor policies. Even the Red-Green coalition in Germany was under pressure to make it easier to fire people, because the reduced risk to the employer makes it easier for them to hire people.

[Terra Nullius]

Take a look at the economic success of countries vs. labour protection.

Oz has had continued, stable growth while maintaining laws against unfair dismissal, and industry-wide standard awards. In the same period, without such provisions, the US has suffered recession and sloww growth.

So obviously, the best way ahead is for us to mimic US employment laws.

Amazingly, some people are actually more productive when they're not in constant fear of losing their primary source of income. Who'dathunkit?

[Terra Nullius]

dp

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Terra Nullius
Take a look at the economic success of countries vs. labour protection.

Oz has had continued, stable growth while maintaining laws against unfair dismissal, and industry-wide standard awards. In the same period, without such provisions, the US has suffered recession and sloww growth.

So obviously, the best way ahead is for us to mimic US employment laws.

Amazingly, some people are actually more productive when they're not in constant fear of losing their primary source of income. Who'dathunkit?

What period are you talking about? Do you think that your specific example of these two particular countries at a particular time is free enough from other factors to prove your point? How do the employment laws in Australia compare to those of the U.S., Germany, France or the U.K.? Do employment laws vary from state to state in Australia as they do in the U.S.?

[Terra Nullius]

Do you think that your specific example of these two particular countries at a particular time is free enough from other factors to prove your point?

Yes.

Hey! At least I based my argument on some kind of data. If it looks far-fetched, what does that say about all the other proposed arguments which haven't even made that much effort?

I mean look at all Ming's b1tchin' on about it. Employees can leave at will, so we should be able to sack them at will - shee-it! The two issues aren't even related.

How do the employment laws in Australia compare to those of the U.S., Germany, France or the U.K.?

They're almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea.

Do employment laws vary from state to state in Australia as they do in the U.S.?

That's also one of the changes being introduced. The Commonwealth is busy trying to strip away state Industrial Relations power and replace it with a standardised federal system.

It's another desperate ploy by the federalists to undermine state sovereignty.

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2005/s1326315.htm

A High Court test case is looming on whether the Federal Government can override the State industrial relations systems. As the Commonwealth prepares to create a single national system of workplace relations, it's signalled it may appeal to the High Court against a decision that questioned its ability to change the existing system.