I worked as a Specialist for 2-3 years while teaching One-To-One lessons for 2 of those years. Kept getting promised the promotion to Creative and was teaching 8 lessons per day, while being paid as a Specialist. I was in my early 20's, in college for Film/Video Production, specialized in Final Cut Studio, Aperture, Logic, all the consumer apps too, everything... They gave the positions to "Older" employees with very little experience with Apple software and no knowledge whatsoever of Professional Apple Software. I ended up quitting. I started my own video training company for Apple software online, couldn't be happier. I was at the point though where the Store Manager told me I was the next Creative, and I got my schedule all set up with the Creative Team, went to Creative Training downtown Chicago, and then they all of sudden stopped talking to me about it, ignored me. When I would bring it up, another manager would talk to me and sort of try to talk me down saying "we didn't know you were still interested in it", etc, buncha crap like that. I trusted those managers. When they gave the positions to 2 older Specialists (late 40's/50's), less experienced, with less time working with the company than I, I quit and never looked back. Best decision I could have made looking back now. I should also mention that 6 months before finally being "promised" the next Creative spot, the store manager gave me a raise because I was a Specialist teaching 8 lessons of one-to-ones per day, but I NEVER GOT THE RAISE! I hope Steve Jobs reads this.
Welcome to retail. They knew that you would quit. The longest possible tenure for you was until you graduated.
So they lied to you and strung you along as long as possible, making undocumented promises.
That is the name of the game. And Apple is a VERY successful retailer.
Nobody on this forum has any idea what actually transpired, myself included. It seems odd to me, however, that if there were a real possibility of discrimination here, AAPL wouldn't have "reconciled" the case out of court and out of the media -- even if they thought it was probably frivolous.
J
That depends entirely on how much money he demanded. If it were cheaper to pay him off, Apple likely would have done it. If it is cheaper to fight, Apple likely would choose that avenue.
The fact that they are fighting has no bearing on the facts of the matter - the decision to fight was a risk/reward cost/benefit analysis by Apple's accountants.
You know, it is up to the manager no matter what... if the manager doesn't like you for whatever reason, he can promote someone else. It's totally his prerogative and not just based on performance and ability. It is always up to the manager.
What if the manager doesn't like "mud people"? Is that OK?
You have the strawman here. You are taking an elitist position for something you can?t possibly defend. Being fired or quitting has no barring on previous comments about his guilt or innocent being determinable from the information given. You can disagree all you want ? this is an open forum after all ? but being a prick, telling people they shouldn?t post unless they know everything about a topic, despite your own limitations, is just you being a prick.
I see that you're unwilling to discuss the topic rationally - I guess my point was completely valid.
First, I haven't taken any elitist position. I said nothing about this guy's guilt or innocence. I have pointed out a couple of legal issues, but never said a word about whether he was guilty. So you're making things up. Strike 1.
Second, I never claimed that people should know everything about a topic. I already corrected you once on that and your continued assertion that I think people should know everything is a sure sign that you're unwilling to discuss it rationally. I said simply that people should know enough about a topic to have intelligent conversation about that topic before they post. Your continued attempts to pretend that I said something I never said are pretty solid proof that you don't have a real argument. Strike 2.
Third, I have taken a very reasonable position. I simply said that people who don't know anything about a subject should keep their mouths shut. Instead of discussing my statement, you launch into an entire series of ad hominem attacks, repeatedly calling me a 'prick'. Your inability to refute anything I've said is blatantly obvious. Strike 3.
You're out.
BTW, I'm curious why you're so insistent that people who don't have even a basic level of knowledge about a subject should be given any credibility. Just what rational argument can be made for people who don't have any knowledge about a subject being encouraged to post widely on that subject? Other than, of course, the right of free speech which allows anyone to post any stupid thing they wish, why in the world are you encouraging it and objecting to my calls for EDUCATED discource?
What if the manager doesn't like "mud people"? Is that OK?
By law, you can discriminate for any reason not prohibited by law. You can choose not to hire blondes. You can choose not to hire people who are left handed. You can choose not to hire people who wear blue jeans. You can choose not to hire people who eat caviar.
You can NOT discriminate against people on any restricted grounds - race, sex, religious beliefs, age, etc.
If a manager chose not to hire mud people, that would be his right - as long as he didn't do it for religious reasons. The mud people would be free to argue that they are a protected religious group. If they could prove that, then discrimination against them would be illegal.
It actually becomes even more subtle than that. I am permitted to not hire blondes - IF I can do that without violating the law. However, it could be argued that if I refuse to hire people with black hair that it would be discriminating against blacks or orientals - and that my choice to hire ONLY blondes would have an illegal effect and should therefore be prohibited.
BTW, I'm curious why you're so insistent that people who don't have even a basic level of knowledge about a subject should be given any credibility. Just what rational argument can be made for people who don't have any knowledge about a subject being encouraged to post widely on that subject? Other than, of course, the right of free speech which allows anyone to post any stupid thing they wish, why in the world are you encouraging it and objecting to my calls for EDUCATED discource?
First of all, you stated "I really wish people who don't understand a topic would refrain from posting.” Since understanding a topic is not the same as knowing every possible phrase for a topic, the only position you can have is that you have to know everything about a topic. I have worked for many companies and quit my employment at all these companies at some point and I’m now retired, and yet have never heard that phrase. Does that I’ve never been employed, or simply that the phrase didn’t come up or that I may have forgotten it. I’ve forgotten plenty of things in my life and every now and then I come across a word that others seems to know but it new to me (and vice versa) so it’s possible. I’m sure I’ll forget many more things before I die, yet by your own assertion not knowing this phrase means one is not qualified to post on this topic in any way, shape or form. Hence, your hypocritical elitism.
The very fact that you don’t understand the full scope of this topic, are only focusing on a single term, and claiming that this open forum is something that it’s not means that you failed your own elitist criteria.
PS: I never called you a prick. I said you’re being a prick with your indefensible, hypocritical, elitist stance. Again, based on your words you shouldn’t be posting here or anywhere else.
First of all, you stated "I really wish people who don't understand a topic would refrain from posting.” Since understanding a topic is not the same as knowing every possible phrase for a topic, the only position you can have is that you have to know everything about a topic.
I see. So in your bizarre logic, when I said people should understand a topic (and which I later clarified to say exactly that they should understand enough to be able to discuss it intelligently), you think that means that you must know EVERYTHING about a topic (even after I corrected you 3 times and said that no one expects poster to know everyhing)? Sorry, I can't be bothered with your idiotic statements. Since no one knows everything about ANY topic, your position we be that I was saying no one should ever say anything about anything - clearly a foolish, misguided position. And since I was specifically allowing for people who were knowledgeable about a topic (which does NOT mean knowing everything) to post, it's clearly in conflict with the silly corner you've painted yourself into.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
I have worked for many companies and quit my employment at all these companies at some point and I’m now retired, and yet have never heard that phrase. Does that I’ve never been employed, or simply that the phrase didn’t come up or that I may have forgotten it. I’ve forgotten plenty of things in my life and every now and then I come across a word that others seems to know but it new to me (and vice versa) so it’s possible. I’m sure I’ll forget many more things before I die, yet by your own assertion not knowing this phrase means one is not qualified to post on this topic in any way, shape or form. Hence, your hypocritical elitism.
'Constructive termination' is not an obscure, nit-picky term. It's a fundamental term that anyone with significant exposure to employment law would know. It's like someone who doesn't know the difference between a bit and a byte posting on a forum for microprocessor design. BY DEFINITION, if you don't know a bit from a byte, you're not qualified to be posting on a microprocessor design forum. Similarly, if you don't know what constructive termination is, then you're not qualified to be commenting on a labor law issue.
It is not elitist to expect people to have at least a basic understanding of a topic before publicly expounding upon it.
And it's certainly not hypocritical - I guess you really like throwing around words you don't understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
PS: I never called you a prick. I said you’re being a prick with your indefensible, hypocritical, elitist stance. Again, based on your words you shouldn’t be posting here or anywhere else.
I see. So you're saying I'm being a prick but you didn't say that I'm a prick. Care to explain the difference?
Face it - your position is foolish and untenable. I simply took a rational, defensible position that people shouldn't be posting about subjects they don't understand at some basic, fundamental level. You've taken offense to that and think that people should be able to post whatever they want about any subject they want, no matter how little they know or how uneducated their position is.
Legally, you're right - people have the right to post whatever the law and forum admins will let them post. But don't you understand the very simple concept that forums like this would be infinitely more valuable and useful if people who didn't know what the f$ck they're talking about would refrain from posting?
Similarly, if you don't know what constructive termination is, then you're not qualified to be commenting on a labor law issue.
I find it odd that you don’t see this as elitism. Shame on you, really!
Quote:
But don't you understand the very simple concept that forums like this would be infinitely more valuable and useful if people who didn't know what the f$ck they're talking about would refrain from posting?
If people who think they are better than everyone else not post this forum would be a much better place. Your elitism has done nothing but disrupt an otherwise informative thread.
In the future, if you think you know something someone else doesn’t try to be constructive in your response.
I find it odd that you don’t see this as elitism. Shame on you, really!
If people who think they are better than everyone else not post this forum would be a much better place. Your elitism has done nothing but disrupt an otherwise informative thread.
In the future, if you think you know something someone else doesn’t try to be constructive in your response.
I gave a very constructive response earlier.
As for the rest, I guess 'elitism' is another word you don't understand.
Expecting people to post only about subjects that they have at least a basic understanding of is not elitism. It's only reasonable to expect people not to clutter up a forum with uninformed posts that don't even have the basic issues right.
If I said I was better than them because I understand this topic and they don't, that would be elitism - but I never said that. Obviously, (at least obvious to everyone but you, apparently), the fact that someone isn't knowledgable about a particular topic doesn't make them a less valuable human being because they probably are more knowledgable in other areas. And even if they're not, there's no rule that says that only a knowledgable person is valuable. I know one person who is mentally retarded who is a gem of a person. YOU are the one pretending that I'm taking a position that 'knowledge on one particular topic defines your worth as a human being'. Why would you pretend something so foolish.
Throughout this entire discussion, you've been imagining things that aren't there and pretending that I said them. All to hide the fact that you're attempting to defend an indefensible position.
I see. So in your bizarre logic, when I said people should understand a topic (and which I later clarified to say exactly that they should understand enough to be able to discuss it intelligently), you think that means that you must know EVERYTHING about a topic (even after I corrected you 3 times and said that no one expects poster to know everyhing)? Sorry, I can't be bothered with your idiotic statements. Since no one knows everything about ANY topic, your position we be that I was saying no one should ever say anything about anything - clearly a foolish, misguided position. And since I was specifically allowing for people who were knowledgeable about a topic (which does NOT mean knowing everything) to post, it's clearly in conflict with the silly corner you've painted yourself into.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Throughout this entire discussion, you've been imagining things that aren't there and pretending that I said them. All to hide the fact that you're attempting to defend an indefensible position.
Some people have called him a troll for doing these sorts of things.
As for the rest, I guess 'elitism' is another word you don't understand.
Expecting people to post only about subjects that they have at least a basic understanding of is not elitism. It's only reasonable to expect people not to clutter up a forum with uninformed posts that don't even have the basic issues right.
If I said I was better than them because I understand this topic and they don't, that would be elitism - but I never said that. Obviously, (at least obvious to everyone but you, apparently), the fact that someone isn't knowledgable about a particular topic doesn't make them a less valuable human being because they probably are more knowledgable in other areas. And even if they're not, there's no rule that says that only a knowledgable person is valuable. I know one person who is mentally retarded who is a gem of a person. YOU are the one pretending that I'm taking a position that 'knowledge on one particular topic defines your worth as a human being'. Why would you pretend something so foolish.
Throughout this entire discussion, you've been imagining things that aren't there and pretending that I said them. All to hide the fact that you're attempting to defend an indefensible position.
Except your posting history suggests that you have a pretty prickly sense of "basic facts", as you are in the habit of dismissing conflicting opinions as nonsense and irrelevant, even concerning matters where all the expertise in the world doesn't grant one the power to rend a final judgement.
Given that you're apparently a prohibitively knowledgable authority on economics, statistics, case law, international relations, computer design, et al, and that this is an internet forum, you'll forgive me if I'm less than eager to accede to your standards of discussion.
Since I'm actually fairly knowledgable in matters of rhetoric, I'd like to point out that formulations such as "obviously, (at least obvious to everyone but you, apparently)" is the grubbiest kind of bottom feeding internet gamesmanship, wherein you pretend to isolate Solipsism as a lone crank, and ally yourself with an entirely specious majority. He does not; I perfectly understand why he got a bit defensive, given your general tone of dismissiveness.
It's the internet, if your standards are such that you can't handle some good natured peanut gallery action you might be more comfortable in a seminar or informal roundtable with suitably informed friends. Claiming that pointing this out is an "indefensible position" is completely meaningless.
FYI, you are apparently unaware that "mud people" is a broad racial slur, so I would imagine your unfamiliarity with the realities of race baiting disqualify you from further (no doubt tedious) comments on that topic.
Except your posting history suggests that you have a pretty prickly sense of "basic facts", as you are in the habit of dismissing conflicting opinions as nonsense and irrelevant, even concerning matters where all the expertise in the world doesn't grant one the power to rend a final judgement.
I see that you haven't bothered to provide any facts to support your position. Nice ad hominem argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
Given that you're apparently a prohibitively knowledgable authority on economics, statistics, case law, international relations, computer design, et al, and that this is an internet forum, you'll forgive me if I'm less than eager to accede to your standards of discussion.
I see that you haven't bothered to provide any facts to support your position. Nice ad hominem argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
Since I'm actually fairly knowledgable in matters of rhetoric, I'd like to point out that formulations such as "obviously, (at least obvious to everyone but you, apparently)" is the grubbiest kind of bottom feeding internet gamesmanship, wherein you pretend to isolate Solipsism as a lone crank, and ally yourself with an entirely specious majority. He does not; I perfectly understand why he got a bit defensive, given your general tone of dismissiveness.
I see that you haven't bothered to provide any facts to support your position. Nice ad hominem argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
It's the internet, if your standards are such that you can't handle some good natured peanut gallery action you might be more comfortable in a seminar or informal roundtable with suitably informed friends. Claiming that pointing this out is an "indefensible position" is completely meaningless.
I see that you haven't bothered to provide any facts to support your position. Nice ad hominem argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
FYI, you are apparently unaware that "mud people" is a broad racial slur, so I would imagine your unfamiliarity with the realities of race baiting disqualify you from further (no doubt tedious) comments on that topic.
Mud People is also the name of a group of people living in the Midlands who are a borderline cult. Nice of you to launch into an attack without even attempting to learn the facts.
I see that you haven't bothered to provide any facts to support your position. Nice ad hominem argument.
I see that you haven't bothered to provide any facts to support your position. Nice ad hominem argument.
I see that you haven't bothered to provide any facts to support your position. Nice ad hominem argument.
I see that you haven't bothered to provide any facts to support your position. Nice ad hominem argument.
Mud People is also the name of a group of people living in the Midlands who are a borderline cult. Nice of you to launch into an attack without even attempting to learn the facts.
Long time lurker, 1st time poster.
Jragosta: You've spent the vast majority of your postings (in this thread, and others) trying to "overtalk" the rest of the forum, as if you're so unbelievably intelligent and well-read that any other opinions made are irrelevant. I'll make the point as simple as possible so that the unwashed masses can keep up with your intellect as well: You're a fucking troll.
'Constructive termination' is not an obscure, nit-picky term. It's a fundamental term that anyone with significant exposure to employment law would know.
Really? Because googling "constructive termination" indicates that the more common term is "constructive dismissal" or "constructive discharge". That is the term used in Title VII.
And it also appears to be a term used more for termination of a franchise than for employment. At least the case law using this specific term appears to be against wrongful termination of franchise agreements.
So the term is not necessarily as obvious as you claim although folks should figure out desired meaning in this context if they were used to the more common term "constructive dismissal".
Quote:
It's like someone who doesn't know the difference between a bit and a byte posting on a forum for microprocessor design. BY DEFINITION, if you don't know a bit from a byte, you're not qualified to be posting on a microprocessor design forum. Similarly, if you don't know what constructive termination is, then you're not qualified to be commenting on a labor law issue.
Meh...given that it's a complaint that Apple violated Florida Civil Rights Act and therefore suing under Florida Statute 760.07 the odds are you are no more knowledgeable about Florida labor laws than anyone else in this forum even if you were a lawyer practicing in another state. Which you aren't.
Quote:
It is not elitist to expect people to have at least a basic understanding of a topic before publicly expounding upon it.
And it's certainly not hypocritical - I guess you really like throwing around words you don't understand.
And if you had such a strong grasp on the subject you might have pointed out that it might be more commonly known as constructive dismissal.
Quote:
Face it - your position is foolish and untenable. I simply took a rational, defensible position that people shouldn't be posting about subjects they don't understand at some basic, fundamental level. You've taken offense to that and think that people should be able to post whatever they want about any subject they want, no matter how little they know or how uneducated their position is.
Face it - you called him out specifically and said he was clueless for not knowing what "constructive termination" was and to STFU.
Exactly how is that not to be taken offensively? If it were me, I wouldn't have said you were acting like a prick and risked the ban hammer or simply dropped you into the ignore list for being an asshat.
Playing all passive aggressive and "rational" after the fact doesn't make your comment any less offensive or trollish. You wanted a strong response and you got one. Unless you want to claim you don't understand human interaction at some "basic, fundamental level", or other equally inane excuse, you baited him into this stupid argument which you might think you have won.
Unfortunately I don't think the prize is what you expected.
Really? Because googling "constructive termination" indicates that the more common term is "constructive dismissal" or "constructive discharge". That is the term used in Title VII.
And it also appears to be a term used more for termination of a franchise than for employment. At least the case law using this specific term appears to be against wrongful termination of franchise agreements.
So the term is not necessarily as obvious as you claim although folks should figure out desired meaning in this context if they were used to the more common term "constructive dismissal".
Meh...given that it's a complaint that Apple violated Florida Civil Rights Act and therefore suing under Florida Statute 760.07 the odds are you are no more knowledgeable about Florida labor laws than anyone else in this forum even if you were a lawyer practicing in another state. Which you aren't.
And if you had such a strong grasp on the subject you might have pointed out that it might be more commonly known as constructive dismissal.
Face it - you called him out specifically and said he was clueless for not knowing what "constructive termination" was and to STFU.
Exactly how is that not to be taken offensively? If it were me, I wouldn't have said you were acting like a prick and risked the ban hammer or simply dropped you into the ignore list for being an asshat.
Playing all passive aggressive and "rational" after the fact doesn't make your comment any less offensive or trollish. You wanted a strong response and you got one. Unless you want to claim you don't understand human interaction at some "basic, fundamental level", or other equally inane excuse, you baited him into this stupid argument which you might think you have won.
Unfortunately I don't think the prize is what you expected.
Very well put. There's a certain kind of internet poster that really rubs me the wrong way, dressing up "you suck because you're teh stupid LOL" with freshman debating tactics.
I actually prefer plain old belligerence to, as you say, passive-agressive high ground fake innocence.
As for the topic at hand, I've seen someone post that they felt discriminated against for being too young. In all of your collective experience, which have you seen more with Apple? Younger or Older discrimination?
Really? Because googling "constructive termination" indicates that the more common term is "constructive dismissal" or "constructive discharge". That is the term used in Title VII.
And it also appears to be a term used more for termination of a franchise than for employment. At least the case law using this specific term appears to be against wrongful termination of franchise agreements.
So the term is not necessarily as obvious as you claim although folks should figure out desired meaning in this context if they were used to the more common term "constructive dismissal".
Meh...given that it's a complaint that Apple violated Florida Civil Rights Act and therefore suing under Florida Statute 760.07 the odds are you are no more knowledgeable about Florida labor laws than anyone else in this forum even if you were a lawyer practicing in another state. Which you aren't.
And if you had such a strong grasp on the subject you might have pointed out that it might be more commonly known as constructive dismissal.
Face it - you called him out specifically and said he was clueless for not knowing what "constructive termination" was and to STFU.
Exactly how is that not to be taken offensively? If it were me, I wouldn't have said you were acting like a prick and risked the ban hammer or simply dropped you into the ignore list for being an asshat.
Playing all passive aggressive and "rational" after the fact doesn't make your comment any less offensive or trollish. You wanted a strong response and you got one. Unless you want to claim you don't understand human interaction at some "basic, fundamental level", or other equally inane excuse, you baited him into this stupid argument which you might think you have won.
Unfortunately I don't think the prize is what you expected.
The phrase is used extensively in the law. In addition, even in cases where 'constructive discharge' is more commonly used, constructive termination is widely known to mean the same thing. See for example:
"Alternatively, the micromanager may attempt by this or other means to create a stressful workplace in which the undesired employees no longer desire to participate; when such stress is severe or pervasive enough, its creation may be regarded as constructive discharge (also known in the United Kingdom as "constructive dismissal" and in the United States as "constructive termination")."
Last time I checked, Florida was part of the United States.
Or, we could check Florida legal cases. At least one cites "constructive termination" as the grounds for action (scroll down).
Comments
I worked as a Specialist for 2-3 years while teaching One-To-One lessons for 2 of those years. Kept getting promised the promotion to Creative and was teaching 8 lessons per day, while being paid as a Specialist. I was in my early 20's, in college for Film/Video Production, specialized in Final Cut Studio, Aperture, Logic, all the consumer apps too, everything... They gave the positions to "Older" employees with very little experience with Apple software and no knowledge whatsoever of Professional Apple Software. I ended up quitting. I started my own video training company for Apple software online, couldn't be happier. I was at the point though where the Store Manager told me I was the next Creative, and I got my schedule all set up with the Creative Team, went to Creative Training downtown Chicago, and then they all of sudden stopped talking to me about it, ignored me. When I would bring it up, another manager would talk to me and sort of try to talk me down saying "we didn't know you were still interested in it", etc, buncha crap like that. I trusted those managers. When they gave the positions to 2 older Specialists (late 40's/50's), less experienced, with less time working with the company than I, I quit and never looked back. Best decision I could have made looking back now. I should also mention that 6 months before finally being "promised" the next Creative spot, the store manager gave me a raise because I was a Specialist teaching 8 lessons of one-to-ones per day, but I NEVER GOT THE RAISE! I hope Steve Jobs reads this.
Welcome to retail. They knew that you would quit. The longest possible tenure for you was until you graduated.
So they lied to you and strung you along as long as possible, making undocumented promises.
That is the name of the game. And Apple is a VERY successful retailer.
Nobody on this forum has any idea what actually transpired, myself included. It seems odd to me, however, that if there were a real possibility of discrimination here, AAPL wouldn't have "reconciled" the case out of court and out of the media -- even if they thought it was probably frivolous.
J
That depends entirely on how much money he demanded. If it were cheaper to pay him off, Apple likely would have done it. If it is cheaper to fight, Apple likely would choose that avenue.
The fact that they are fighting has no bearing on the facts of the matter - the decision to fight was a risk/reward cost/benefit analysis by Apple's accountants.
You know, it is up to the manager no matter what... if the manager doesn't like you for whatever reason, he can promote someone else. It's totally his prerogative and not just based on performance and ability. It is always up to the manager.
What if the manager doesn't like "mud people"? Is that OK?
he he. i have forgotten more about computing than most 20 year olds know lol.
I was programming mainframes before that manager was born.
You have the strawman here. You are taking an elitist position for something you can?t possibly defend. Being fired or quitting has no barring on previous comments about his guilt or innocent being determinable from the information given. You can disagree all you want ? this is an open forum after all ? but being a prick, telling people they shouldn?t post unless they know everything about a topic, despite your own limitations, is just you being a prick.
I see that you're unwilling to discuss the topic rationally - I guess my point was completely valid.
First, I haven't taken any elitist position. I said nothing about this guy's guilt or innocence. I have pointed out a couple of legal issues, but never said a word about whether he was guilty. So you're making things up. Strike 1.
Second, I never claimed that people should know everything about a topic. I already corrected you once on that and your continued assertion that I think people should know everything is a sure sign that you're unwilling to discuss it rationally. I said simply that people should know enough about a topic to have intelligent conversation about that topic before they post. Your continued attempts to pretend that I said something I never said are pretty solid proof that you don't have a real argument. Strike 2.
Third, I have taken a very reasonable position. I simply said that people who don't know anything about a subject should keep their mouths shut. Instead of discussing my statement, you launch into an entire series of ad hominem attacks, repeatedly calling me a 'prick'. Your inability to refute anything I've said is blatantly obvious. Strike 3.
You're out.
BTW, I'm curious why you're so insistent that people who don't have even a basic level of knowledge about a subject should be given any credibility. Just what rational argument can be made for people who don't have any knowledge about a subject being encouraged to post widely on that subject? Other than, of course, the right of free speech which allows anyone to post any stupid thing they wish, why in the world are you encouraging it and objecting to my calls for EDUCATED discource?
What if the manager doesn't like "mud people"? Is that OK?
By law, you can discriminate for any reason not prohibited by law. You can choose not to hire blondes. You can choose not to hire people who are left handed. You can choose not to hire people who wear blue jeans. You can choose not to hire people who eat caviar.
You can NOT discriminate against people on any restricted grounds - race, sex, religious beliefs, age, etc.
If a manager chose not to hire mud people, that would be his right - as long as he didn't do it for religious reasons. The mud people would be free to argue that they are a protected religious group. If they could prove that, then discrimination against them would be illegal.
It actually becomes even more subtle than that. I am permitted to not hire blondes - IF I can do that without violating the law. However, it could be argued that if I refuse to hire people with black hair that it would be discriminating against blacks or orientals - and that my choice to hire ONLY blondes would have an illegal effect and should therefore be prohibited.
BTW, I'm curious why you're so insistent that people who don't have even a basic level of knowledge about a subject should be given any credibility. Just what rational argument can be made for people who don't have any knowledge about a subject being encouraged to post widely on that subject? Other than, of course, the right of free speech which allows anyone to post any stupid thing they wish, why in the world are you encouraging it and objecting to my calls for EDUCATED discource?
First of all, you stated "I really wish people who don't understand a topic would refrain from posting.” Since understanding a topic is not the same as knowing every possible phrase for a topic, the only position you can have is that you have to know everything about a topic. I have worked for many companies and quit my employment at all these companies at some point and I’m now retired, and yet have never heard that phrase. Does that I’ve never been employed, or simply that the phrase didn’t come up or that I may have forgotten it. I’ve forgotten plenty of things in my life and every now and then I come across a word that others seems to know but it new to me (and vice versa) so it’s possible. I’m sure I’ll forget many more things before I die, yet by your own assertion not knowing this phrase means one is not qualified to post on this topic in any way, shape or form. Hence, your hypocritical elitism.
The very fact that you don’t understand the full scope of this topic, are only focusing on a single term, and claiming that this open forum is something that it’s not means that you failed your own elitist criteria.
PS: I never called you a prick. I said you’re being a prick with your indefensible, hypocritical, elitist stance. Again, based on your words you shouldn’t be posting here or anywhere else.
First of all, you stated "I really wish people who don't understand a topic would refrain from posting.” Since understanding a topic is not the same as knowing every possible phrase for a topic, the only position you can have is that you have to know everything about a topic.
I see. So in your bizarre logic, when I said people should understand a topic (and which I later clarified to say exactly that they should understand enough to be able to discuss it intelligently), you think that means that you must know EVERYTHING about a topic (even after I corrected you 3 times and said that no one expects poster to know everyhing)? Sorry, I can't be bothered with your idiotic statements. Since no one knows everything about ANY topic, your position we be that I was saying no one should ever say anything about anything - clearly a foolish, misguided position. And since I was specifically allowing for people who were knowledgeable about a topic (which does NOT mean knowing everything) to post, it's clearly in conflict with the silly corner you've painted yourself into.
I have worked for many companies and quit my employment at all these companies at some point and I’m now retired, and yet have never heard that phrase. Does that I’ve never been employed, or simply that the phrase didn’t come up or that I may have forgotten it. I’ve forgotten plenty of things in my life and every now and then I come across a word that others seems to know but it new to me (and vice versa) so it’s possible. I’m sure I’ll forget many more things before I die, yet by your own assertion not knowing this phrase means one is not qualified to post on this topic in any way, shape or form. Hence, your hypocritical elitism.
'Constructive termination' is not an obscure, nit-picky term. It's a fundamental term that anyone with significant exposure to employment law would know. It's like someone who doesn't know the difference between a bit and a byte posting on a forum for microprocessor design. BY DEFINITION, if you don't know a bit from a byte, you're not qualified to be posting on a microprocessor design forum. Similarly, if you don't know what constructive termination is, then you're not qualified to be commenting on a labor law issue.
It is not elitist to expect people to have at least a basic understanding of a topic before publicly expounding upon it.
And it's certainly not hypocritical - I guess you really like throwing around words you don't understand.
PS: I never called you a prick. I said you’re being a prick with your indefensible, hypocritical, elitist stance. Again, based on your words you shouldn’t be posting here or anywhere else.
I see. So you're saying I'm being a prick but you didn't say that I'm a prick. Care to explain the difference?
Face it - your position is foolish and untenable. I simply took a rational, defensible position that people shouldn't be posting about subjects they don't understand at some basic, fundamental level. You've taken offense to that and think that people should be able to post whatever they want about any subject they want, no matter how little they know or how uneducated their position is.
Legally, you're right - people have the right to post whatever the law and forum admins will let them post. But don't you understand the very simple concept that forums like this would be infinitely more valuable and useful if people who didn't know what the f$ck they're talking about would refrain from posting?
Similarly, if you don't know what constructive termination is, then you're not qualified to be commenting on a labor law issue.
I find it odd that you don’t see this as elitism. Shame on you, really!
But don't you understand the very simple concept that forums like this would be infinitely more valuable and useful if people who didn't know what the f$ck they're talking about would refrain from posting?
If people who think they are better than everyone else not post this forum would be a much better place. Your elitism has done nothing but disrupt an otherwise informative thread.
In the future, if you think you know something someone else doesn’t try to be constructive in your response.
I find it odd that you don’t see this as elitism. Shame on you, really!
If people who think they are better than everyone else not post this forum would be a much better place. Your elitism has done nothing but disrupt an otherwise informative thread.
In the future, if you think you know something someone else doesn’t try to be constructive in your response.
I gave a very constructive response earlier.
As for the rest, I guess 'elitism' is another word you don't understand.
Expecting people to post only about subjects that they have at least a basic understanding of is not elitism. It's only reasonable to expect people not to clutter up a forum with uninformed posts that don't even have the basic issues right.
If I said I was better than them because I understand this topic and they don't, that would be elitism - but I never said that. Obviously, (at least obvious to everyone but you, apparently), the fact that someone isn't knowledgable about a particular topic doesn't make them a less valuable human being because they probably are more knowledgable in other areas. And even if they're not, there's no rule that says that only a knowledgable person is valuable. I know one person who is mentally retarded who is a gem of a person. YOU are the one pretending that I'm taking a position that 'knowledge on one particular topic defines your worth as a human being'. Why would you pretend something so foolish.
Throughout this entire discussion, you've been imagining things that aren't there and pretending that I said them. All to hide the fact that you're attempting to defend an indefensible position.
I see. So in your bizarre logic, when I said people should understand a topic (and which I later clarified to say exactly that they should understand enough to be able to discuss it intelligently), you think that means that you must know EVERYTHING about a topic (even after I corrected you 3 times and said that no one expects poster to know everyhing)? Sorry, I can't be bothered with your idiotic statements. Since no one knows everything about ANY topic, your position we be that I was saying no one should ever say anything about anything - clearly a foolish, misguided position. And since I was specifically allowing for people who were knowledgeable about a topic (which does NOT mean knowing everything) to post, it's clearly in conflict with the silly corner you've painted yourself into.
Throughout this entire discussion, you've been imagining things that aren't there and pretending that I said them. All to hide the fact that you're attempting to defend an indefensible position.
Some people have called him a troll for doing these sorts of things.
I gave a very constructive response earlier.
As for the rest, I guess 'elitism' is another word you don't understand.
Expecting people to post only about subjects that they have at least a basic understanding of is not elitism. It's only reasonable to expect people not to clutter up a forum with uninformed posts that don't even have the basic issues right.
If I said I was better than them because I understand this topic and they don't, that would be elitism - but I never said that. Obviously, (at least obvious to everyone but you, apparently), the fact that someone isn't knowledgable about a particular topic doesn't make them a less valuable human being because they probably are more knowledgable in other areas. And even if they're not, there's no rule that says that only a knowledgable person is valuable. I know one person who is mentally retarded who is a gem of a person. YOU are the one pretending that I'm taking a position that 'knowledge on one particular topic defines your worth as a human being'. Why would you pretend something so foolish.
Throughout this entire discussion, you've been imagining things that aren't there and pretending that I said them. All to hide the fact that you're attempting to defend an indefensible position.
Except your posting history suggests that you have a pretty prickly sense of "basic facts", as you are in the habit of dismissing conflicting opinions as nonsense and irrelevant, even concerning matters where all the expertise in the world doesn't grant one the power to rend a final judgement.
Given that you're apparently a prohibitively knowledgable authority on economics, statistics, case law, international relations, computer design, et al, and that this is an internet forum, you'll forgive me if I'm less than eager to accede to your standards of discussion.
Since I'm actually fairly knowledgable in matters of rhetoric, I'd like to point out that formulations such as "obviously, (at least obvious to everyone but you, apparently)" is the grubbiest kind of bottom feeding internet gamesmanship, wherein you pretend to isolate Solipsism as a lone crank, and ally yourself with an entirely specious majority. He does not; I perfectly understand why he got a bit defensive, given your general tone of dismissiveness.
It's the internet, if your standards are such that you can't handle some good natured peanut gallery action you might be more comfortable in a seminar or informal roundtable with suitably informed friends. Claiming that pointing this out is an "indefensible position" is completely meaningless.
FYI, you are apparently unaware that "mud people" is a broad racial slur, so I would imagine your unfamiliarity with the realities of race baiting disqualify you from further (no doubt tedious) comments on that topic.
Some people have called him a troll for doing these sorts of things.
Such people would typically be, of course, trolls seeking to muddy the waters and sew dissent.
Except your posting history suggests that you have a pretty prickly sense of "basic facts", as you are in the habit of dismissing conflicting opinions as nonsense and irrelevant, even concerning matters where all the expertise in the world doesn't grant one the power to rend a final judgement.
I see that you haven't bothered to provide any facts to support your position. Nice ad hominem argument.
Given that you're apparently a prohibitively knowledgable authority on economics, statistics, case law, international relations, computer design, et al, and that this is an internet forum, you'll forgive me if I'm less than eager to accede to your standards of discussion.
I see that you haven't bothered to provide any facts to support your position. Nice ad hominem argument.
Since I'm actually fairly knowledgable in matters of rhetoric, I'd like to point out that formulations such as "obviously, (at least obvious to everyone but you, apparently)" is the grubbiest kind of bottom feeding internet gamesmanship, wherein you pretend to isolate Solipsism as a lone crank, and ally yourself with an entirely specious majority. He does not; I perfectly understand why he got a bit defensive, given your general tone of dismissiveness.
I see that you haven't bothered to provide any facts to support your position. Nice ad hominem argument.
It's the internet, if your standards are such that you can't handle some good natured peanut gallery action you might be more comfortable in a seminar or informal roundtable with suitably informed friends. Claiming that pointing this out is an "indefensible position" is completely meaningless.
I see that you haven't bothered to provide any facts to support your position. Nice ad hominem argument.
FYI, you are apparently unaware that "mud people" is a broad racial slur, so I would imagine your unfamiliarity with the realities of race baiting disqualify you from further (no doubt tedious) comments on that topic.
Mud People is also the name of a group of people living in the Midlands who are a borderline cult. Nice of you to launch into an attack without even attempting to learn the facts.
I see that you haven't bothered to provide any facts to support your position. Nice ad hominem argument.
I see that you haven't bothered to provide any facts to support your position. Nice ad hominem argument.
I see that you haven't bothered to provide any facts to support your position. Nice ad hominem argument.
I see that you haven't bothered to provide any facts to support your position. Nice ad hominem argument.
Mud People is also the name of a group of people living in the Midlands who are a borderline cult. Nice of you to launch into an attack without even attempting to learn the facts.
Long time lurker, 1st time poster.
Jragosta: You've spent the vast majority of your postings (in this thread, and others) trying to "overtalk" the rest of the forum, as if you're so unbelievably intelligent and well-read that any other opinions made are irrelevant. I'll make the point as simple as possible so that the unwashed masses can keep up with your intellect as well: You're a fucking troll.
Please continue with the thread. /popcorn
'Constructive termination' is not an obscure, nit-picky term. It's a fundamental term that anyone with significant exposure to employment law would know.
Really? Because googling "constructive termination" indicates that the more common term is "constructive dismissal" or "constructive discharge". That is the term used in Title VII.
And it also appears to be a term used more for termination of a franchise than for employment. At least the case law using this specific term appears to be against wrongful termination of franchise agreements.
http://www.nixonpeabody.com/publicat...l3.asp?ID=3179
So the term is not necessarily as obvious as you claim although folks should figure out desired meaning in this context if they were used to the more common term "constructive dismissal".
It's like someone who doesn't know the difference between a bit and a byte posting on a forum for microprocessor design. BY DEFINITION, if you don't know a bit from a byte, you're not qualified to be posting on a microprocessor design forum. Similarly, if you don't know what constructive termination is, then you're not qualified to be commenting on a labor law issue.
Meh...given that it's a complaint that Apple violated Florida Civil Rights Act and therefore suing under Florida Statute 760.07 the odds are you are no more knowledgeable about Florida labor laws than anyone else in this forum even if you were a lawyer practicing in another state. Which you aren't.
It is not elitist to expect people to have at least a basic understanding of a topic before publicly expounding upon it.
And it's certainly not hypocritical - I guess you really like throwing around words you don't understand.
And if you had such a strong grasp on the subject you might have pointed out that it might be more commonly known as constructive dismissal.
Face it - your position is foolish and untenable. I simply took a rational, defensible position that people shouldn't be posting about subjects they don't understand at some basic, fundamental level. You've taken offense to that and think that people should be able to post whatever they want about any subject they want, no matter how little they know or how uneducated their position is.
Face it - you called him out specifically and said he was clueless for not knowing what "constructive termination" was and to STFU.
Exactly how is that not to be taken offensively? If it were me, I wouldn't have said you were acting like a prick and risked the ban hammer or simply dropped you into the ignore list for being an asshat.
Playing all passive aggressive and "rational" after the fact doesn't make your comment any less offensive or trollish. You wanted a strong response and you got one. Unless you want to claim you don't understand human interaction at some "basic, fundamental level", or other equally inane excuse, you baited him into this stupid argument which you might think you have won.
Unfortunately I don't think the prize is what you expected.
Really? Because googling "constructive termination" indicates that the more common term is "constructive dismissal" or "constructive discharge". That is the term used in Title VII.
And it also appears to be a term used more for termination of a franchise than for employment. At least the case law using this specific term appears to be against wrongful termination of franchise agreements.
http://www.nixonpeabody.com/publicat...l3.asp?ID=3179
So the term is not necessarily as obvious as you claim although folks should figure out desired meaning in this context if they were used to the more common term "constructive dismissal".
Meh...given that it's a complaint that Apple violated Florida Civil Rights Act and therefore suing under Florida Statute 760.07 the odds are you are no more knowledgeable about Florida labor laws than anyone else in this forum even if you were a lawyer practicing in another state. Which you aren't.
And if you had such a strong grasp on the subject you might have pointed out that it might be more commonly known as constructive dismissal.
Face it - you called him out specifically and said he was clueless for not knowing what "constructive termination" was and to STFU.
Exactly how is that not to be taken offensively? If it were me, I wouldn't have said you were acting like a prick and risked the ban hammer or simply dropped you into the ignore list for being an asshat.
Playing all passive aggressive and "rational" after the fact doesn't make your comment any less offensive or trollish. You wanted a strong response and you got one. Unless you want to claim you don't understand human interaction at some "basic, fundamental level", or other equally inane excuse, you baited him into this stupid argument which you might think you have won.
Unfortunately I don't think the prize is what you expected.
Very well put. There's a certain kind of internet poster that really rubs me the wrong way, dressing up "you suck because you're teh stupid LOL" with freshman debating tactics.
I actually prefer plain old belligerence to, as you say, passive-agressive high ground fake innocence.
I see that you haven't bothered to provide any facts to support your position. Nice ad hominem argument.
I see that you haven't bothered to provide any facts to support your position. Nice ad hominem argument.
I see that you haven't bothered to provide any facts to support your position. Nice ad hominem argument.
I see that you haven't bothered to provide any facts to support your position. Nice ad hominem argument.
It is amazingly (and for you obliviously) ironic that your post protesting the lack of "facts" is simply further evidence of your asshattery.
OMG thanks for the laugh and welcome to my ignore list.
As for the topic at hand, I've seen someone post that they felt discriminated against for being too young. In all of your collective experience, which have you seen more with Apple? Younger or Older discrimination?
Really? Because googling "constructive termination" indicates that the more common term is "constructive dismissal" or "constructive discharge". That is the term used in Title VII.
And it also appears to be a term used more for termination of a franchise than for employment. At least the case law using this specific term appears to be against wrongful termination of franchise agreements.
http://www.nixonpeabody.com/publicat...l3.asp?ID=3179
So the term is not necessarily as obvious as you claim although folks should figure out desired meaning in this context if they were used to the more common term "constructive dismissal".
Meh...given that it's a complaint that Apple violated Florida Civil Rights Act and therefore suing under Florida Statute 760.07 the odds are you are no more knowledgeable about Florida labor laws than anyone else in this forum even if you were a lawyer practicing in another state. Which you aren't.
And if you had such a strong grasp on the subject you might have pointed out that it might be more commonly known as constructive dismissal.
Face it - you called him out specifically and said he was clueless for not knowing what "constructive termination" was and to STFU.
Exactly how is that not to be taken offensively? If it were me, I wouldn't have said you were acting like a prick and risked the ban hammer or simply dropped you into the ignore list for being an asshat.
Playing all passive aggressive and "rational" after the fact doesn't make your comment any less offensive or trollish. You wanted a strong response and you got one. Unless you want to claim you don't understand human interaction at some "basic, fundamental level", or other equally inane excuse, you baited him into this stupid argument which you might think you have won.
Unfortunately I don't think the prize is what you expected.
http://www.rutan.com/publications/B8...4A650DA957.pdf
The phrase is used extensively in the law. In addition, even in cases where 'constructive discharge' is more commonly used, constructive termination is widely known to mean the same thing. See for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromanagement
"Alternatively, the micromanager may attempt by this or other means to create a stressful workplace in which the undesired employees no longer desire to participate; when such stress is severe or pervasive enough, its creation may be regarded as constructive discharge (also known in the United Kingdom as "constructive dismissal" and in the United States as "constructive termination")."
Last time I checked, Florida was part of the United States.
Or, we could check Florida legal cases. At least one cites "constructive termination" as the grounds for action (scroll down).
http://www.romingerlegal.com/florida...2D03-3133.html
Or we could look at the filing in question - where the guy claimed he was constructively terminated by Apple.
So none of your rant has any validity.