RE: Whilst you are fast asleep in your bed... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


GeekyGirl -> RE: Whilst you are fast asleep in your bed... (7/2/2007 9:58:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

Nobody is criticising Geeky for lacking empathy - I just don't see why you need to use aspergers as an explaination/excuse etc when a few posts before and after she was criticising people and saying she lacked empathy for the reason for being unemployed - including syndromes and medical/mental issues.  Its just a double standard.
 
Why not say I just lack empathy?  Why add the caveat of 'because of Aspergers'?
I am a bitch sometimes because I am just a bitch.  I am not going to turn and blame it on anything else, or use something as a caveat, no matter my mental health - which is exactly what Geeky was complaining about in the first place.  Using excuses or explainations as a means to an end.
 
Peace
the.dark.



My point was that having a mental illness isn't an excuse for not working in most cases and I used myself as an illustrative example. Having a mental illness is a reason for a lot of things...but in most cases not a reason for being unable to hold a job of some sort. Even severely retarded people can get jobs.

And I mentioned the aspergers because of it's relevance to the other discussion at hand on the general board...I thought it might be educational for some to witness aspergers in action.




SubinMaine -> RE: Whilst you are fast asleep in your bed... (7/2/2007 9:59:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GeekyGirl

Losing your job for being pregnant is illegal and if she was smart, she'd sue.


This just goes to show how utterly naive and clueless you really are.  First off, *i* am the one Instynctive was referring to so i think i have a pretty good grasp on what my situation entailed.

Do not assume that i am dim-witted just because i did not sue.  You want some reality? Here you go sunshine, try not to be too compassionate, you may hurt yourself:

While employed at my last job i suffered 2 miscarriages.  The company was, and continues to be, VERY stable.  They did not, however, welcome my 3rd pregnancy warmly.  While training the temp who was to cover for my maternity leave, the "powers that be" consulted with lawyers on how best to end my employment as they felt my pregnancy would be a difficult one and they truly did not want to deal with it.

my mental health at this point was on the verge of disaster as all i could think about was carrying this baby to term.  When they let me go, they held my checks "hostage" until i signed a form stating that i would not sue them.  In return, they offered to pay my insurance for a year to cover my pregnancy and birth.  When you go through what i have gone through and are presented with the choice of having medical care while pregnant or NOT having medical care, your priorities come shining through.  i signed that paper because i was worried sick about my baby getting proper care.  i came very very close to losing her because of the stress this put me under.  No, i did not immediately realize that i would qualify for assistance with medical from the state, why? Because i was always self sufficient, employed and never had to rely on anyone other than myself and/or my immediate family.

Yes, i DID look into what i could do about the situation due to being forced to sign under duress and, aside from a long, drawn out legal battle with no guarantee of the outcome, i was stuck. So i chose to just leave it be which was the best interest for my health.

Wildfleurs is correct, pregnancy is NOT protected under Equal Employment Opportunity laws.  My performance WAS flawless, my absences due to my previous miscarriages were my only days missed from work, of which, i had them use my vacation time instead of sick time to try and make up for the fact that i had missed the days out.  i held up my end of the bargain.  Their excuse for my termination was poor job performance and numerous write ups, all of which were false.  If my performance had been lacking, they would NEVER have allowed me to train the temp help they hired as i was the ACCOUNTANT for the company.

I am educated, i have worked full time since my sophmore year of high school.  40 hours per week or more since 1986.  This is my first time EVER being without a job, i had it good, i had decent jobs, an education and TONS of experience.  I am now 37 and over qualified for every position i apply for, do not say that it is as easy as walking into Kmart and filling out an application because it's NOT.  Having been on the other side of that coin, when i had to hire people, if they were over qualified they were skipped over.  Reason? Because those people were taking jobs making far less than their education warranted and, as an employer, we knew that they would continue looking for a job that would pay what they were actually worth.  No employer is going to waste the time, money and effort to bring on a new employee that is only going to be there for as long as it takes them to find a better job.

You were 3 years old when i started living in the REAL world.  Don't even pretend to assume you know the situations behind every jobless American or every homeless American.  To do so just shows how ignorant you really are.

People like to make excuses?  Look in the mirror sunshine, you used your Asperger's as an "excuse" a few posts prior. The only "excuse" for ignorance is a lack of education.  Seems to me, you need an education on how truly unfair life can be for some people.

i hope you never have reality slap you in the face too hard. 




SeeksOnlyOne -> RE: Whilst you are fast asleep in your bed... (7/2/2007 9:59:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GeekyGirl

Actually I believe it  does cover getting fired....read the entire thing.


read the entire thing and didnt see that.......saw a lot of "treated as any other temporarily disabled"...."more than 15 workers" etc etc

as someone else stated, there are right to work states and right to fire states or something like that.....you can be fired for something as small as they dont like your perfume if they choose to.....




popeye1250 -> RE: Whilst you are fast asleep in your bed... (7/2/2007 9:59:31 AM)

You have to look at the big picture.
Of course there's going to be a lot less "upward mobility" with a Global Economy.
Good paying manufacturing jobs move to "cheap labor" countries!
And for every 100,000 blue coller jobs that dissapear from Western countries about 40,000 white collar jobs go with them so no-one is immune.
A lot of this is due to bad govt. policy and all these one-way trade deals.
I have to laugh at the people who say that "you can't prevent a global economy."
Sure you can, with one stroke of the legislative or executive pen.
But, George Bush is seemingly "worried" about the consumer.
What, that we don't have enough cheap imported junk to buy from U.S.owned  factories in third world countries?
So, people who should be making $30 an hour by now are only making $10 an hour today.
And manufacturers who were making 300% profit make 2,000% profit.
Oh suuuuuure, that'll help!
They want to manufacture overseas but they still demand access to *our* markets!
Fucking idiots in Washington!




Wildfleurs -> RE: Whilst you are fast asleep in your bed... (7/2/2007 9:59:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

quote:

Again with the illogical factually incorrect information.  Under the equal opportunity federal laws race, gender, age, and disabilities are protected classes, but being pregnant isn't a protected class. 


http://www.eeoc.gov/types/pregnancy.html

Apparently the EEOC doesn't have your depth of knowledge about what is and isn't covered under federal civil rights laws.


It was me, not DarcyandtheDark (your post says, in reply to) and again yes you can file claims with the EEOC around prengnancy but because its not a protected class, filing a successful lawsuit is highly unlikely.  GeekyGirl specifically reccomended filing a lawsuit, not a claim with the EEOC.

C~

Edited to add: I'm finding this thread pretty amusing given a recent thread about people literally saying what they mean.




GeekyGirl -> RE: Whilst you are fast asleep in your bed... (7/2/2007 10:00:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

quote:

ORIGINAL: GeekyGirl

AND , Darcy, it wasn't an apology. It was a smart-assed statement.


That was the.dark.posting that, GeekyGirl, I am Darcy.

Do pay attention, dear.


Darcy


Wasn't paying attention. I thought you were one person. Sorry bout that. Maybe ya'll could use different fonts or something that's less confusing? I tend to read quickly and don't see what the signature is.




SubinMaine -> RE: Whilst you are fast asleep in your bed... (7/2/2007 10:00:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GeekyGirl

Actually I believe it  does cover getting fired....read the entire thing.


Live it first, consult a lawyer and get an answer instead of relying on your own interpretation of the law.

That law applies to contracted employees only...employers at will can fire you for any reason whatsoever....the problem is PROVING the discrimination.




RCdc -> RE: Whilst you are fast asleep in your bed... (7/2/2007 10:02:54 AM)

Geeky - we do use different fonts...and our signatures (if you look)
 
Peace
the.dark.




SeeksOnlyOne -> RE: Whilst you are fast asleep in your bed... (7/2/2007 10:03:29 AM)

did you manage to carry this baby to term? i have seen the heartbreak of miscarriage and really hope a baby was your reward for all the bs you got from work.




GeekyGirl -> RE: Whilst you are fast asleep in your bed... (7/2/2007 10:04:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

Geeky - we do use different fonts...and out signatures (if you look)
 
Peace
the.dark.



Ok, maybe I just didn't notice. They didn't look that different until you said something. Been reading yor posts for a while now and never noticed you were two people.




Alumbrado -> RE: Whilst you are fast asleep in your bed... (7/2/2007 10:04:45 AM)

quote:

Wildfleurs is correct, pregnancy is NOT protected under Equal Employment Opportunity laws. 


Both of you have been provided with direct links to the EEOC, whch clearly says exactly the opposite... treating an employee differently because they fall into the class of pregnant people, is a violation.

I know that there is a big difference between being the victim of EEOC violations, and prevailing in a lawsuit, but I don't see the point in spreading untrue information that it isn't an EEOC violation to wrongfully terminate someone for being pregnant.




GeekyGirl -> RE: Whilst you are fast asleep in your bed... (7/2/2007 10:06:25 AM)

People are getting hung up on the fact that the EEOC doesn't use the term "They can't fire you". But by saying they can't treat you differently, that includes firing.




Sinergy -> RE: Whilst you are fast asleep in your bed... (7/2/2007 10:07:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GeekyGirl

I tend to read quickly and don't see what the signature is.



You are not alone.  Many people tend to read quickly, misinterpret comments, misconstrue concepts, make invalid assertions about what the other person has written, misattribute points made, etc.

What ends up happening is that the poster who does these things often tends to come off as rushed, frenetic, careless, or obtuse.

"When people think you are dying they really listen..."  Tyler Durden
"...instead of waiting for their turn to speak."  Marla Singer
Fight Club




RCdc -> RE: Whilst you are fast asleep in your bed... (7/2/2007 10:08:17 AM)

sorry - side thing - no one take notice!
the.dark.here -
god that photo is amazing subinmaine!  Your stunning!
 
Ok... back to 'normality'[:)]
 
Peace
the.dark.




RCdc -> RE: Whilst you are fast asleep in your bed... (7/2/2007 10:10:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GeekyGirl
 Even severely retarded people can get jobs.


True, George Bush is living testament to this. [;)]

Darcy




GeekyGirl -> RE: Whilst you are fast asleep in your bed... (7/2/2007 10:12:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

quote:

ORIGINAL: GeekyGirl
 Even severely retarded people can get jobs.


True, George Bush is living testament to this. [;)]

Darcy



ROFL.

I so totally agree.




instynctive -> RE: Whilst you are fast asleep in your bed... (7/2/2007 10:13:07 AM)

quote:

rely on anyone other than myself and
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

Both of you have been provided with direct links to the EEOC, whch clearly says exactly the opposite... treating an employee differently because they fall into the class of pregnant people, is a violation.


In an "employment at will" state, it doesn't matter.. they will cover their ass, fire you and not think twice about it.




Alumbrado -> RE: Whilst you are fast asleep in your bed... (7/2/2007 10:13:44 AM)

quote:

It was me, not DarcyandtheDark (your post says, in reply to)


You've been on this forum long enough to know how the software works.

And  the assertion that wrongfully firing someone for being pregnant is not a violation of EEOC laws is simply not accurate... females are a  protected class, as pointed out in the linked material, and it is a violation of federal law to treat them differently for traits associated with being female... like pregnancy.




SubinMaine -> RE: Whilst you are fast asleep in your bed... (7/2/2007 10:23:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

quote:

Wildfleurs is correct, pregnancy is NOT protected under Equal Employment Opportunity laws. 


Both of you have been provided with direct links to the EEOC, whch clearly says exactly the opposite... treating an employee differently because they fall into the class of pregnant people, is a violation.

I know that there is a big difference between being the victim of EEOC violations, and prevailing in a lawsuit, but I don't see the point in spreading untrue information that it isn't an EEOC violation to wrongfully terminate someone for being pregnant.


Even though it is listed by the EEOC, it is NOT a violation in an uncontracted, work./fire at will job.  i had been in constant contact with the EEOC regarding the situation...legally, there was nothing i could do unless i could prove duress, after speaking with several lawyers regarding the entire situation, no one would touch the case because duress would be far TO hard to prove.

The only thing the EEOC would, and DID do, was notate the employer's information as to what they did in my situation so that if it happened again in the future, the information would be there if the NEXT victim wanted to attempt a lawsuit.

i'm not arguing the way the law is written, i'm arguing the way it's put into use when the situation presents itself.

i was floored when i found all this information out, directly from the Boston EEOC headquarters.




SubinMaine -> RE: Whilst you are fast asleep in your bed... (7/2/2007 10:25:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeeksOnlyOne

did you manage to carry this baby to term? i have seen the heartbreak of miscarriage and really hope a baby was your reward for all the bs you got from work.


Yes, Seeks, i was successful this time around *smile* UM is going on 5 months and doing wonderfully, thank you for asking [:)]




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125