|
I'm reading about unions and labor history in the state of Wisconsin and now I've got an idle curiosity about employee resignation. Let's specify Wisconsin, unless using another state makes the questions more interesting. Assume the following hypothetical: an employee at a non-government corporation gives written 2 weeks notice to terminate employment because they want to take another job. They are told that their employment is terminated effective immediately, and they leave without a problem. 1. The employee handbook states that unused vacation will be paid out upon "termination for any reason". 2. The employee handbook states that NO notice is required on either party to terminate employment. I'm curious: What would be included in the final paycheck aside from pay for actual time already worked? A) It looks they will get their unused vacation as a payout. B) They will probably NOT paid for the 2 weeks between their written "end date" and the date they were asked to leave. Maybe call that 50-50 chance depending on how friendly the parting was? I'm guessing this because Wisconsin law does not seem to specify that any end of employment payments are required, unless it's part of a written employment agreement (although everywhere I found says paying the 2 weeks is usually highly recommended for "employee morale"). Anyone have any interesting stories or links of arguments that have been made in cases about voluntary termination (any state)? Any humorous stories of employers not paying the employee for their notice time, and then every other employee quitting without notice because morale is trashed? Another idle question, are there any states which DO enforce payment of that notice period, and if so are there protections for employers? I can just see an employee giving 6 months notice and then doing zero work the whole time because they are "protected" at that point. Comedy option: the wages that could be due for the 2 week notice amounts to $13.
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 18:45 |
|
|
jassi007 posted:IANAL but i'm going to spell out what they're saying real blunt like. This is not worth the contest. They're not going to pay or give up the items without a fight. Either take them to small claims court or chalk it up as a $500 mistake not to get involved with crazy bitches. I really have alot of free times since im single now and it might be fun to see them freak out. If they can overcome this as a couple it will make them stronger right.  Thanks for the inputs duders.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
Just move on with your life, you'll be happier in the long run.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 04:50
|
|
|
Frog 1.0 posted:I really have alot of free times since im single now and it might be fun to see them freak out. Nothing about the legal system is "fun."
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
Frog 1.0 posted:I really have alot of free times since im single now and it might be fun to see them freak out. Dude, she moved on. Get over it. Courts are open during business hours. You will have to miss work. poo poo will get heated and emotional. It will drag on. Worst case scenario, your obsessive rear end will get slapped with a restraining order or an harassment suit. When you initiate legal procedures, you also give the other party a huge amount of control over your life - they will countersue you for all sorts of BS. Take a deep breath, write off the $500 life lesson and move on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
Hey thread I'm mad that my ex is banging another dude instead of being as sad about the break-up as I think she should be, and I think making their lives a little more annoying over a pittance and some furniture I didn't even want a few weeks ago is a good use of my time and money. What's the best way to go about wasting the legal system's resources on my petty emotional issues?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 13:42
|
|
|
Are you guilty of negligence if you left a box on the stove and "caused" $30,000 structural damage to an apartment? Story is: We were moving into a new apartment and left boxes pretty much everywhere and then left for the night to crash at a friends house because we were exhausted from moving. We left at 3:00PM Saturday and on Sunday at 7:00AM fire department was called and there was extensive fire and smoke damage. -We do NOT have renters insurance (We already know we are liable for our contents) -No one cooked anything, no one knows what happened or how the element turned on in the first place The property management company is NOT going through their insurance for the damage to their property. They told us that this would take too long and raise their insurance rates. Instead they are going to wait for the official fire report and then come after us for the damages if it's negligence or an accident. Also: They are withholding our first and last months rent deposit. We never signed the lease but they are claiming the signed application and transfer of funds is good enough for a binding agreement to commence a month-to-month lease. spotswood fucked around with this message at 14:25 on Nov 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 14:21
|
|
|
spotswood posted:Are you guilty of negligence if you left a box on the stove and "caused" $30,000 structural damage to an apartment? Probably. They're going to get that first and last for sure. If they sue you, you'll definitely want a lawyer. I'm also guessing you don't have 30k to pay for the damages, so they'll eventually call their insurance. Sounds pretty negligent to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 14:36
|
|
|
Imagine telling 12 strangers, "Yes, we left flammable material on the stove overnight, and the fire report says thats what caused the fire, but we have no idea how the heating element turned on, so its not our fault!" Get a lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 15:25
|
|
|
res ipsa loquitur! My law school education is redeemed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
Renter's insurance has coverages that could have helped there, not only for your belongings but also the damage to the building and other people's belongings. Not sure if you knew that or not but yeah. Get renter's insurance, folks. It's cheap and helps you from getting hosed like that guy is about to. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
Is the assumption that the burner was on the entire time and it took until 7am for anybody to notice anything? That sounds incredible to me. What seems even more incredible is that it would have turned itself on, but this thread has a couple people saying they've experienced it: http://www.biggerpockets.com/forums/52/topics/73128-gas-stove-that-turns-itself-on?page=1 Maybe you can prove you weren't there at the time, and hopefully the fire report supports the possibility of it turning on after 3pm. IANAL so I don't know if that would be enough to do anything for you, but it's a possibility (to talk about with your lawyer).
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
He said element so it's probably an electric stove, and perhaps the knob got bumped and it came on at a very low heat and ended up smoldering through a box of clothes or something and then something more flammable got ignited toward the end. Who knows.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
Yeah, the fact that he left something unattended on a thing designed to get very hot is probably going to look negligent. Even though nothing happens in 99% of the cases, it's pretty easy to not leave things on elements/burners, even when they're off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
Gross negligence is dischargeable in bankruptcy. Just sayin' 
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
Thought I'd give you guys an update because you were nice enough to reply to my post. My girlfriends dad knows a Fire chief and he took a look at the fire report. Apparently the Fire Marshal checked off the box "Other: Unintentional". In the comments section it says "Stove breaker tripped, box on stove". In no way does it insinuate that that was the cause of the fire. I called a lawyer and he told me there is not enough evidence to prove that it was in fact the box that caused it. He also told me to go to small claims court to get back my first and last months rent as the apartment is deemed "not liveable" The property management company still hasn't seen the official fire report and they are waiting to see this before they make their decision to come after me or not. And yes we have over $30,000 because we are saving for a down payment on a house so bankruptcy is out of the question... You want to know another lovely part about this? I was getting renters insurance quotes the day before this happened but never committed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
Quick send in a backdated application !!!! Don't do this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
That exact thing happened to three friends of mine when they were moving into a newly renovated place. They put some stuff down on the stove as they were moving in, tried to turn on the lights and they didn't go on so they went to the panel and flipped the breaker. Went to get more boxes and 20 minutes later came back to a fire. Didn't have renters insurance but the landlord or reno crew was found liable. This was in Ontario.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
Interesting... I'm in Ontario as well. Did it go to court? No cause was proven, or switching on the breaker somehow turned on the stove? Also if the landlord or Reno crew was liable, and they didn't have renters insurance, did they sue the landlord?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
Whoever installed the stove had left the knobs for the stove turned to on so when they flipped the breaker it turned it on. Those other details I don't know about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
"Unintentional" just means "not arson." Good luck but to me it doesn't sound great.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
spotswood posted:Apparently the Fire Marshal checked off the box "Other: Unintentional". Former fire marshal checking in. Without knowing the extent of damage that's not very useful, but I can tell you that most of the check boxes are irrelevant or not helpful (thanks federal government for requiring us to use a reporting system designed by not-fire-investigators if we want grant money!). What matters is the narrative. And what is said there cane be subtle, especially when it's not arson or an obvious product defect. It's only when we get subpoenaed by fighting insurance companies that things get interesting. Because by that point they have each sent their own fire investigators out to write reports that suspiciously always support their financial interest, and you get to defend your own against the two. Also, than you for spelling marshal correctly. Seemingly no one else does. Ninja edit: Beejay is correct, but there are categories other than "unintentional" that are also not arson. The "unintentionals" point blame at one or more human beings. Motronic fucked around with this message at 01:48 on Nov 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
Unintentional does not mean not negligent. You can do all sorts of unintentional things that are negligent. It's a bad idea to leave things on top of a stove. You'd probably be liable in my jurisdiction.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
Motronic posted:Former fire marshal checking in. Without knowing the extent of damage that's not very useful, but I can tell you that most of the check boxes are irrelevant or not helpful (thanks federal government for requiring us to use a reporting system designed by not-fire-investigators if we want grant money!). What matters is the narrative. If it's subtle how is that enough evidence for cause? Shouldn't the report have to say eliminated all other possible sources for them to win this?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
A report is not evidence anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
spotswood posted:If it's subtle how is that enough evidence for cause? Shouldn't the report have to say eliminated all other possible sources for them to win this? Cause and origin only needs to be "not arson" for it to basically not matter to a municipal fire marshal. Sure, you have crusaders and there is the occasional investigation that you really want to put yourself out on because you feel strongly about it. But it's not our job to assign liability unless it's criminal. Just like the police, who many of us fire marshals carry the same responsibilities and duties. What you should be reading here is: your civil case is not our problem. We deal primarily with criminal law. If a criminal act has been reasonably discounted we're out. And that's not by choice for many/most of us. But it is reality/people who pay you/keeping your job. euphronius posted:A report is not evidence anyway. It's at best a reason to subpoena the person who wrote it in civil matters. In criminal matters it was the reason I put cuffs on you and called the PD to transport you to lockup.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
Oh yeah I wasn't thinking criminal. Still you couldn't use it in a criminal case.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
euphronius posted:A report is not evidence anyway. But I filed a police report!
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
'euphronius posted:Still you couldn't use it in a criminal case. Not sure what your're saying here. My reports have been used in both civil and criminal cases. I'm obviously not a lawyer so I don't know if they count as "evidence" (because I have enough contact with the legal system to know that words normal people use often don't mean the same thing in legal matters) but they are certainly used in court. Hot Dog Day #91 posted:But I filed a police report! Oh....maybe that's what he meant. Yeah, my report isn't the same as a police officer writing down your unconfirmed story. I'm an investigator providing an interpretation of physical findings which are very often weighted based on my training and track record. I guess it's more like the opinion of an expert witness who was on the scene.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
Are you there to testify about the report?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
I still don't see how they can prove anything with only a box on stove as seen in fire report. What about bad wiring? What if in the pre-occupancy cleanup they turned on an element? none of us turned it on and all witnesses can testify to that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Are you there to testify about the report? If I'm subpoenaed. Which almost always happen when these thing go to court. Sometimes I'm not even asked about the text or conclusions of the report when I'm there. It's just to be asked about the photos. ( 'Is this and accurate representation of what you observed in <place> on <date/time>?") In fact, I've been subpoenaed for a report that a friend the next town over wrote because I was the one taking the pictures for him for the same thing. I'm sure some of the actual lawyers here can shed light on why this seemingly obvious thing is important to officially scrutinize on the record in person. spotswood posted:I still don't see how they can prove anything with only a box on stove as seen in fire report. What about bad wiring? What if in the pre-occupancy cleanup they turned on an element? none of us turned it on and all witnesses can testify to that. It would take more than an internet thread to refute this further than to say that, depending on what was at the scene you can tell A LOT about what happened. This is why we go through years of training and being an assistant/deputy before you get the job. And decades of being a firefighter before that. No, you can't always puzzle out and prove everything. But most laymen are very surprised at what we can prove, and most times in a manner that is really obvious/intuitive (when you know exactly where to look and take photos/samples/document). I'd be happy to sperg about this and dig out old photos, but this is obviously not the place. Motronic fucked around with this message at 03:05 on Nov 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
Foundation, basically. They want to use the photos as evidence, so they need someone to testify that the photos are an accurate representation of <thing>. Also, I am curious what your opinion on splash marks is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Also, I am curious what your opinion on splash marks is. In what context? Are you talking about accelerant trails/marks?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
Motronic posted:In what context? Are you talking about accelerant trails/marks? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Yes. Give me a hint. That's a pretty deep subject. I think what you're getting at is some pseudoscience that the old dudes seem to get into, but from a straight forensic standpoint I go by actual science, which includes boring things like lab testing samples to confirm your suspicions. I also am aware that many things around the home are accelerants and just because you found one doesn't mean it was intended to cause or even meaningfully contributed to a fire.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
spotswood posted:I still don't see how they can prove anything with only a box on stove as seen in fire report. What about bad wiring? What if in the pre-occupancy cleanup they turned on an element? none of us turned it on and all witnesses can testify to that. IN a civil case they only have to convince a jury that it was more likely than not that your negligence caused the damage. It's a much lower standard than a criminal case. If they have evidence that you left a box of flammable stuff on top of a stove and your side can't produce any evidence showing other possible causes, then a jury may well find that it was more likely than not that your leaving the box of stuff there was the cause. "But what if this other thing happened?" is not evidence, it's just a theory which you still have to prove ... you would actually have to present some evidence that someone else turned on an element or that there was bad wiring. Even if you can convince a jury that someone else turned on the element, you also have to convince them that it was totally reasonable and not negligent to leave a flammable box on top of a stove, especially without checking whether it was on or off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
What the gently caress y'all I want to read about the guy who burned his apartment down try to get off because reasons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:What the gently caress y'all I want to read about the guy who burned his apartment down try to get off because reasons. Because you enjoy the misery of others?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 18:45 |
|
|
Everyone is missing the point: the dude has some risk here, and no amount of internet/father-in-law/fire marshal reassurance is going to change that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 05:00
|
|