Replies

Now, whether or not X number of citizens deciding a civil action, and who are empaneled to do so, have been infused with your particular and evidently self-preferred brand of Trotskyism, well...that's a throw of the dice. I daresay it varies by state, rather widely.

I daresay you have no education or real-world experience with the legalities of employment law.

I daresay you're out of your mind, or at best thoroughly uninformed.

I stopped hiring ANYONE in 1988. Obviously, I need various kinds of labour for the company to operate; they're all temps and contractors now, have been for 17+ years, going on 18, going on infinity (or whenever the good Lord decides to take me).

Any other brilliant observations? I quite agree with the notion of the employer demanding certain standards of an employee, but disagree completely with the notion of an employer having the ability to dictate the private behaviour of an employee off-site and during the employee's own time.

For ANY reason. Nor have I ever done, nor would. Wanna smoke dope? Couldn't care less, as a general thing. Wanna shoot H? Be my guest, it's your life.

However, the potential quarrels with either are 1) you might get busted and not be able to live up to your agreement with me because you're in chokey, and, 2) if you do, AND you've been doping AND your productivity is falling, measurably (and we have very good metrics for this, thanks) ...you're gone.

And everyone here, temp or contractor, knows all the rules, exactly, before the game starts. It's the only fair and ethical and practical policy there is.

It would be both thoroughly unethical and bloody stupid to change the rules by diktat after putting anyone into a job. I've many failings, first to admit them, but one simply must treat one's associates ethically -- never mind economics, just plain decency rules here, as well as one helluva lot of pragmatism.