|
pandariot posted:I'm scared it will make them angry, I'm scared of how they will retaliate. ?? What could they do? Fire you?
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 10:38 |
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:?? What could they do? Fire you? Probably worried about them suing (countersuing?) for some bullshit or another.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
Well I've never been sued, that can't be fun. I've filed for unemployment, what if they try to block that? Who knows what they could accuse me of? What if they get a lawyer to fight my wage claim? Who knows what else they do?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
pandariot posted:Well I've never been sued, that can't be fun. I've filed for unemployment, what if they try to block that? Who knows what they could accuse me of? What if they get a lawyer to fight my wage claim? Who knows what else they do? Stop being such a worry wart, poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
pandariot posted:Well I've never been sued, that can't be fun. I've filed for unemployment, what if they try to block that? Who knows what they could accuse me of? What if they get a lawyer to fight my wage claim? Who knows what else they do? You should file the claim, and then take that extra money and see a therapist. Your anxiety is causing you not to be willing to act in your best self interest.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
Both of you are absolutely right. Thanks again everyone for your help.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
the milk machine posted:The most I've ever thought about criminal law was in law school, but I do not believe the Fifth Amendment would extend to protect evidence like dash cam footage, as obtaining the footage doesn't require you to be a witness against yourself. They can take a sample of your blood or obtain video from your phone, so why not your dash cam footage? There's no real Fourth Amendment issue either, as they'd have no problem getting a warrant for the footage. In a civil liability situation, the other party could definitely obtain the footage in discovery if they knew to request it. The one thing that worries me the most is that all dashcams will inevitably overwrite the evidence unless I intervene. I'm naturally a really forgetful person, and I'm afraid if I forget to turn the camera on, forget to save the recording, or just gently caress up pushing the buttons on the cam, I'm going to have to explain to a judge why the video is missing and have to hope they believe me. I'm sure by now there's been an actually case with circumstances like this, right? Edit: All the cases I can find with missing footage due to ineptness involve police dashcams and they all seem to not get in trouble over it, but that might be because they're police. Zero VGS fucked around with this message at 00:36 on Jul 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
Zero VGS posted:The one thing that worries me the most is that all dashcams will inevitably overwrite the evidence unless I intervene. I'm naturally a really forgetful person, and I'm afraid if I forget to turn the camera on, forget to save the recording, or just gently caress up pushing the buttons on the cam, I'm going to have to explain to a judge why the video is missing and have to hope they believe me. I'm sure by now there's been an actually case with circumstances like this, right? Until a civil suit or criminal charges are 1) brought against you and 2) you're made aware of them, you aren't compelled or required to preserve evidence. Example: When I'm about to sue a company I send a letter notifying them of impending litigation, and their responsibility to preserve potentially relevant evidence. In the event that our review of their hard drive shows deletion of documents or information after they received the letter, they will get in trouble. If it was deleted before, I have a tough row to how trying to get sanctions or the evidence deemed against them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Until a civil suit or criminal charges are 1) brought against you and 2) you're made aware of them, you aren't compelled or required to preserve evidence. Most places I've seen it's "reasonable anticipation of litigation" that triggers the duty to preserve, not actual suit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
pandariot posted:Well I've never been sued, that can't be fun. If they sue, it will be for what, three days' worth of vacation wages? Their attorney would probably cost more than that. pandariot posted:I've filed for unemployment, what if they try to block that? Who knows what they could accuse me of? Unemployment hearings tend to go in favor of the employee in California. Your employer would have to convince an administrative judge you were fired for cause or quit on your own. (For cause doesn't mean just being bad at your job, by the way.) pandariot posted:What if they get a lawyer to fight my wage claim? Who knows what else they do? Then presumably the DLSE lawyer will do the job they're paid to do and fight back.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
Sir John Falstaff posted:Most places I've seen it's "reasonable anticipation of litigation" that triggers the duty to preserve, not actual suit. That's correct. I should have been more clear.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 07:02
|
|
|
UK employment law question here (though maybe just a basic understanding of contract law is enough; I have no idea). I'm looking to change jobs but my current employer has paid for quite a bit of professional training. In 2011 they sent employees their policy on this, which included a clause that if any employee chose to cease employment within 12 months of completing a training module, that employee would be required to reimburse the cost incurred for that module. Following that, if I were to leave tomorrow I would owe £5,000. I never signed the policy document or even responded to the email. There is no mention of any training costs clawback in my actual employment contract. Is that policy document legally binding? Does the fact that I undertook the training indicate that I was prepared to be bound by it? Note that there is no phrase in the document explicitly saying that acceptance of the training implies acceptance of the terms of the policy. Thanks for any advice!
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
Just to clarify, did you sign up for training after the policy had been promulgated?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
It was implied (as early as the interview stage) that the role included the obligation to undertake this training. I received the policy email a couple of months before starting any training, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
Halisnacks posted:
So, there's a document that they have no proof you've seen and an email that they have no proof that you received. Right? http://www.claim.co.uk/recouping-costs-lost-on-newly-trained-staff-who-leave-your-employment.html quote:However, if you paid for more formal, work-related training that your employees chose to undertake, such as training that has enabled them to gain a professional qualification that will prove useful outside of your employment, you may be able to recover some of the costs if you entered into a formal training agreement. A training agreement is a contract between employer and employee that sets out the terms and conditions for paying for training. This will usually stipulate that the whole or part of the cost of training paid for by the employer will be recoverable should the employee leave within a certain period of time. A sliding scale is usually used which provides for a decreasing payback provision corresponding to the length of service the employee has after the training is completed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
spog posted:So, there's a document that they have no proof you've seen and an email that they have no proof that you received. Right? Basically, though isn't it fair to assume employees check their work-related emails? Regarding the "formal agreement" part - what makes something a formal as opposed to an informal agreement? If a signature or written acknowledgement is needed, then yes no formal agreement was made. If a verbal agreement suffices, I think maybe it was agreed to? (Hard to remember the exact conversations from 2011.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
Halisnacks posted:Basically, though isn't it fair to assume employees check their work-related emails? Just because someone sends you an email, it doesn't mean that a) you actually received it b) you read it or (importantly) c) you agreed to it. Remember, they have to prove that this payback clause was part of your terms of employment and that you agreed to it. quote:Regarding the "formal agreement" part - what makes something a formal as opposed to an informal agreement? If a signature or written acknowledgement is needed, then yes no formal agreement was made. If a verbal agreement suffices, I think maybe it was agreed to? (Hard to remember the exact conversations from 2011.) 'I don't recall any such conversation' 'I did not agree to such an amendment to my employment contract' Now let them prove otherwise. If you are nervous, make an appointment with the Citizens Advice Bureau and bring all the written documentation that you have.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 09:27
|
|
|
New York City privacy question here. I work in a supportive housing site in Brooklyn. One of my tenants who lives in the building has taken to filming staff with her phone while in the process of doing their duties. It's rude as heck and upsetting to some. Now I'm aware there isn't an expectation of privacy outside, but is the tenant freely allowed to film staff within the building? Staff like security at the front desk area in particular. Or the superintendent in the hallways doing his job. My boss wants me to just tell her she's not allowed to do this, but I'm not so sure it's something anyone can legally prevent her from doing. Thoughts? Thanks for any help.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
Bo-Pepper posted:New York City privacy question here. This seems like a pretty good media law blog. http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/gathering-private-information If you physically enter a private area, photograph or take video of people engaged in private activities in places where they reasonably expect to be private, or in some other other way intrude into a person's privacy (by, for example, opening the person's mail), you could be liable for a violation of what is called "intrusion upon seclusion." If you collect certain personal data, this can also intrude into a person's private affairs. In the newsgathering context, the actual collection of the data could be seen as intrusion if the method you use meets the four general elements for an intrusion claim. Generally speaking, however, you will not be liable for intrusion if you photograph or capture video of people in public places, even if they have not consented to being recorded, because individuals cannot have a reasonable expectation of privacy when in public. Nor will you be liable for intrusion if you gather private information from documents that are available to the general public.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
I get that for the most part, but I suppose my question is does a lobby or hallway of an apartment building constitute a public space?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
Bo-Pepper posted:New York City privacy question here. I wouldn't think there was a reasonable expectation of privacy in the situation you described, but I have no idea; NY law and TX law are very different. Have yall considered making changes to your internal policy, that prohibit this sort of thing? Do you already have harassment policies, and would this fall under the heading of harassment? I think you were right to be cautious about just spouting off to this lady. "News at 11: A local supportive housing sight in Brooklyn has recently banned tenants from taking video, photographs, or recordings of maintenance personnel. The building manager claims that his employees felt harassed by the tenants; this tenant tells a different story. Miss B. These strange men come in my house, all hours of the day. I just need protection. They never do repairs right, they make a huge mess, and I complained about it but they always denied it. I have a right to be protected. Other residents have claimed that the building's new policy is a back door to the denial of repairs, and other damages." Also, Auto-tune Re-mix.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
Bo-Pepper posted:I get that for the most part, but I suppose my question is does a lobby or hallway of an apartment building constitute a public space? Again, that's the question; does NY Case Law address this issue? If not, how are courts likely to rule? I personally wouldn't think so, but there is someone somewhere else who knows for sure. My opinion on the issue isn't worth a poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
Train a dog to follow her around with a gopro everywhere she goes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
I found a page discussing the issue that seems to clearly note that hallways and such are also considered public places. It's the same reason a building owner can set up cameras everywhere. The article's a few years old but I doubt the issues discussed have changed in the meantime. http://cooperator.com/articles/1165/1/Surveillance-Equipment-in-Your-Building/Page1.html quote:New York's criminal law supports this rationale by defining "public places" to include building "common areas," and Penal Law § 240.00(1) provides that lobbies of apartment houses not constituting private rooms are defined as "public places." Accordingly, New York courts have upheld criminal arrests based on crimes perpetrated and observed in these areas since residents have no legitimate expectation of privacy in places that have "public or substantial group access." Further confirmation from the source: http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article240.htm quote:S 240.00 Offenses against public order; definitions of terms. Bo-Pepper fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Jul 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
Not a legal suggestion, but personally, I'd just ignore her. If she sees she isn't getting a reaction- even if that reaction is you saying "stop filming me"- she'll probably eventually grow tired of this and stop. Being told she isn't allowed to do that will just add fuel to the fire.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
Well that would have been my preference from the start, but my supervisor was getting all up in arms about it. Regardless, I'm not going to tell a tenant they can't do something they clearly are allowed to do no matter how obnoxious.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
Bo-Pepper posted:Well that would have been my preference from the start, but my supervisor was getting all up in arms about it. Regardless, I'm not going to tell a tenant they can't do something they clearly are allowed to do no matter how obnoxious. This might be an opportunity to revisit your company's policies and procedures, and the terms of service for tenants with regards to the service your company provides. Contractual rights and restrictions can be expanded beyond standard legal rights.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
Record her back. She's probably doing this due to some sort of paranoia, and that will definitely address her concerns. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
Bo-Pepper posted:New York City privacy question here. Does her camera have a gold fringe?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
If my baby mama got gold fringe on her pussy, do I need to pay child support?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
spog posted:Just because someone sends you an email, it doesn't mean that Thanks for this, by the sounds of it I might have a leg to stand on re: not paying it back. Though I'm a bit surprised this big corporation would go to the trouble of drafting a document ostensibly to cover their asses that may not actually do so. I'll speak to whoever out equivalent of the Citizens Advice Bureau in the UK is before I serve notice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 08:00
|
|
|
Halisnacks posted:Thanks for this, by the sounds of it I might have a leg to stand on re: not paying it back. Though I'm a bit surprised this big corporation would go to the trouble of drafting a document ostensibly to cover their asses that may not actually do so. Big corporations are staffed by people. You know, morons. Doing this properly would require someone who knows HR law (rather than just an HR drone) AND a competent manager to implement it correctly. What are the odds of finding both within the same organisation? Google it, so that you feel confident about the situation: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=u...:en-GB:official If they want to make a claim, ask that they do it in writing. either it will scare them off, or they'll give you something that will back up your side of the arguement. Win-win for you. quote:I'll speak to whoever out equivalent of the Citizens Advice Bureau in the UK is before I serve notice. That would be the Citizens Advice Bureau: http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 11:18
|
|
|
I am very very suddenly being evicted by my roommate. Literally no warning. I was given a Notice To Quit today. I live in Michigan. I don't think I'm technically the lease-holder, but I did have to go to the office and sign everything on the lease when I moved in. Does this mean I'm not a sub-tenant? Because if I'm not a subtenant, then he has to have a reason, right, beyond just not liking me? I'm happy to move out if I am really THAT unwelcome, but I am literally broke because of medical bills, so I kind of want to hold off and you know, actually get enough money for a downpayment somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
Is the lease you signed with the landlord, or your roommate? IE., who's renting you the space you occupy?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Is the lease you signed with the landlord as a renter, or your roommate? IE., who's renting you the space you occupy? I'm not entirely clear. He says it's all in his name, but I think he might be bluffing, since I signed the lease and all the addendums and all that with the actual leasing office. Could that still mean I'm subleasing?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
Moon Prism posted:I'm not entirely clear. He says it's all in his name, but I think he might be bluffing, since I signed the lease and all the addendums and all that with the actual leasing office. Could that still mean I'm subleasing? If you're on record with the leasing office as a tenant, that may change things. Do you have a copy of the paperwork you signed? Can you get it from the leasing office if not? Do you want to stay in this apartment past August 31st anyway, knowing that your apartment mate wants you out? Here's the Michigan tenants' rights web page. AlbieQuirky fucked around with this message at 03:44 on Jul 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
Even if you're subletting, you still have rights and should still contact your local tenant advocacy group. You do need to find out who you have your lease with - the landlord or your roommate - because that's pretty important, and it makes a huge, hilarious difference. I'd recommend going to the office tomorrow to get a copy of the lease, that's always the best starting point. IANAL, but I'm not aware of a place where you can just get evicted without notice. And if you're not renting directly from the roommate, he can't even evict you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
Oh, sorry if that wasn't clear. I am not being evicted yet, but I have been given a Notice to Quit. if I don't move by the end of next month, then he can begin the process of formally evicting me, if he is actually my sublandlord. I've checked and that might be legal... I'm just still stuck on this whole "sublease" thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
Go to the office, ask them for a copy of the lease paperwork, check if they have you on record as a tenant. If you're renting from the landlord directly, your roommate (Probably) can't do poo poo. And if all you got is "Yo, please move out or I'm going to start eviction procedures"... He might be bluffing. I don't know about Michigan, but around here evicting someone takes a while and is a giant pain in the rear end. You could be in there for a few months yet. Don't panic yet, but act fast.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 10:38 |
|
|
Eviction requires cause or breach or whatever, not just "I don't want you here anymore". If you have a monthly lease, or your current lease ends at the end of August, the holder can decline to renew it with appropriate notice. This is not an eviction. Make sure you're using the right term, basically. E: if you are indeed renting from the landlord directly and he's not involved he can basically sit and spin.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 04:04
|
|
