A more accurate thing for you to say might be that it affects you, in your own experience. Unless you can provide a cite that shows it affects everyone the same way, that is. I suspect that anecdotal evidence will differ from person to person.
gonzo, another issue you bring up is the issue of privacy in general. With cameras in nearly every store, at intersections, on stretches of highway, etc. and the pervasiveness of the internet, with credit records, cell phone records, address histories, banking records, etc. all available online, do we need to rethink what privacy is? It seems to me that the next generation of adults (people 10-20 y.o., say) will have a radically different view and expectation of privacy than previous generations. To them a complete background check and interweb scouring may seem as reasonable as it seems unreasonable to me.
I absaloutely,one hundred percent stand by my statement.
It could be that some peoples physiologies differ in their tolerance to blow or that they are in fact still being affected by it but are unable to have the critical self awareness to realise this.
Also the quality, the amount and the method used to indulge most definitely affect the absorption and ultimate outcome of the brains/bodys reaction to it,including how long the user is still under the influence.
I’m curious about this: are all of the people at TVLC salaried employees? Because it seems to me that if people are held accountable for their actions when technically off the clock, they are in fact NEVER off the clock. Any hourly employees should be paid 24 hours a day, since the company considers them to be “representatives” 24 hours a day.
Seriously…when I was a college teacher in a small town, I was told I couldn’t date.
No…I know what you are thinking…but I am serious. Not just my students (definitely agree) or even any student of the college (disagree but I can see why someone would agree) but explicitely told that I couldn’t date anyone (though it was said offhand that another professor would probably be fine though it might cause ‘work problems’).
The issue was brought up because I asked someone out who didn’t like the fact that I asked her out because she might decide to go to college in the future and then it would be uncomfortable for her if she then had me as a prof. So, of course, she complained. To her credit, she didn’t state falsehoods…the above was the reason for her complaint. (There were 2 math profs at this college and I was the most liked one - the other was known as a old grump :D)
I couldn’t believe that I was having this meeting and kept asking questions because I had to believe that I was misunderstanding them…I COULDN’T DATE???
I finally asked them straight out if what they were saying was that I couldn’t date. They were taken aback at this, but soon talked it through and agreed.
This was in April. That summer I took off for a large city (Minneapolis) and found dates and met my future wife and a job which paid MUCH more than teaching so by September I called them and said Adios!
So, yes, they can pry into your personal life to a degree that is &(!&&%!
A mix of salary and hourly, but the salaried still are assumed to only be working a “40 hour” week.
A lawyer-type could hopefully chime in:
If your boss and HR called you into their office and said “We saw on the local news footage last night that you were part of the drunk fistfight at the football game. Many of us watched the game and recognized you. Even though there were no charges filed, we’re sorry to say that we don’t feel that you represent our best image to our customers and have to ask you to clean out your desk.”
Legal? Don’t know. Realistic? Absolutely, where I work.
Pot isn’t “blow” nor “goofballs” nor “horse” nor “M”. The term you may be searching for would be “weed” or “grass” or “marijuana cigarette”, something along those lines.
And … really … get me some. Fucking three days? Awesome, dude!
I think that like a few people before you have had to do you may well have to face up to the fact that you’ve been smoking pretty crap merchandise over the years either that or what you consider to be a good session is rather mediocre by those a little more hardcore then yourself.
Anyone whos loaded up heavily on some good skunk would find your incredulity at my previous a little strange to say the least.
Thanks for instructing me as to the correct terminology to use.I had my first joint forty years ago and over the years have smoked pipes,silver papered,hot knifed.bhonged,lunged,bottled and space caked at various locations worldwide.
(Though I’ve never hubble bubbled )
I actually stopped indulging a couple of years ago when I gave up smoking as I dont want to get back on nicoteine,and yes I did try using herbal tobacco but the bloody spliffs kept going out.
We all like to think that we’re Heavy Duty and Uber Cool but unfortunately most of us aren’t.
Sucking eggs,teaching and grannies spring to mind.
Legal? Yes-**-the general principle is that the employer doesn’t have to hire you and you don’t need to work for the employer unless you both want to. **If one of you stops wanting to work for/employ the other for any or for no reason, the employment relationship ends (i.e. you’re fired/you quit).
Employers might very well want to stop employing someone if they see him on TV doing something stupid/has reporters calling him up asking if that was really his employee in a drunk fist fight–remember, the basic principle is that he doesn’t have to employ you any more unless he wants to.
unless there’s some reason to stop employer from doing so. Two kinds of things there:
There are some reasons that are protected by statute (waaay up near the top of the thread), by state constitutions/laws depending on state. For example, you can’t be fired just because you’re old. (or for example, some states have mandatory notice provisions)
Some people (e.g. many union workers) have contracts that agree not to apply the general rule that an employer can fire someone for no reason–for example, requiring a hearing, certain formalities, laying off workers in reverse seniority order, requiring notice from the employee, that kind of thing.
So you can agree not to apply the rule that you can be fired or quit for any reason. States can make laws around it, and do in certain narrow ways. But apart from that, legally, if the employer doesn’t like your haircut, and wants to fire you for it, sure.
This is what I find completely bizarre about American employment ethic because it is totally opposed to what we have in Europe (even the UK which is much closer to the US than the rest of Europe).
It never ceases to amaze me when I see films and TV shows set in the US when someone says words to the effect of “I don’t like you, you’re fired” and the person clears their desk there and then and nothing more is said. In Europe there’s no way you could do that; of course there are grounds for instant dismissal and it’s pretty easy to suspend someone for conduct unbecoming but firing someone? Two written warnings and a dispute resolution procedure first, please. If not then say hello to an employment tribunal and hefty compensation claims for unfair/constructive dismissal. Typically the most straight forward way to get rid of someone here is through redundancy although of course that means a bit of rejigging of roles and responsibilities if you’ve used it to get rid of someone who actually wasn’t redundant, because you can’t then employ someone to replace them on the same basis without being accused of unfair dismissal.
One of the reasons I wouldn’t even consider working in the US is this very idea that if I turn up to work wearing the wrong colour shoes my boss can fire me, and that’s the end of it.
As a British person running the American subsidiary of a British company, I am familiar with both ways. The benefit of the US approach is that it is much lower risk for us to hire someone. If we make a mistake, such as hiring the wrong person, or our business forecasts don’t pan out, it is quick and cheap to make cuts. While this is rough on any individual involved, if the process were more difficult and expensive, we would simply hire fewer people in the first place. Hence it can be argued that the US approach leads to more jobs and a more entrepreneurial spirit. Compare US unemployment rates with the likes of France and Germany.
I think it could also be argued that there are more jobs because there are more employments terminated (either by the employeer or the employee). More job openings doesn’t necessarily mean an increase in the number of jobs.
Besides that, the things you listed all seem to be reasonable, business-as-usual type reasons for dismissing someone, or for not hiring. Now that you are in a position in the US, do you perform extensive background searches on your employees? Your prospective hires? Do you feel that it is appropriate for an employer to do so?
We perform criminal background checks, which I do think is reasonable. And as I mentioned in another post, our customers are increasingly demanding that people who work on their projects undergo BG checks, so we don’t have a whole lot of choice.
Some people in this thread have mentioned getting references as part of the hiring process. The non-US people may not be aware that it is quite difficult to get references here. Most companies have a policy of verifying that person’s employment and title only. The fear is that if someone does not get a job as a result of a bad reference, they will sue the referee.