In a message dated 10/31/2009 8:51:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time, thomas.dalton@gmail.com writes:
where sensationalised rumours get spread because of a lack of accurate information.>>
I think it's a little pre-mature to say that it's a sensationalised rumour speading because of a lack of accurate information. What we know so far is someone said "was he fired?" and now we know he has a last day posted. It's a little odd to work for only a few months at a job though. So "fired" wouldn't be a bad guess. "Quit in a huff" could be another guess.
Will
2009/10/31 WJhonson@aol.com:
In a message dated 10/31/2009 8:51:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time, thomas.dalton@gmail.com writes:
where sensationalised rumours get spread because of a lack of accurate information.>>
I think it's a little pre-mature to say that it's a sensationalised rumour speading because of a lack of accurate information. What we know so far is someone said "was he fired?" and now we know he has a last day posted. It's a little odd to work for only a few months at a job though. So "fired" wouldn't be a bad guess. "Quit in a huff" could be another guess.
As I said above, he wouldn't be working a month's notice if he had been fired. "Resigned by mutual agreement" is more likely. I guess either a) he didn't fit in in the office, b) the job turned out to be not quite what he was expecting or c) he had some kind of major change of plan. None of those options really makes for a good rumour.
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
As I said above, he wouldn't be working a month's notice if he had been fired.
You correctly qualified that with "In my experience people don't usually" the first time.
In any case, the difference between "laid off" and "fired" is often quite blurry, and people certainly often get notice when being "laid off".
"Resigned by mutual agreement" is more likely.
I don't know. With the unemployment rate in the double digits, it's often better to refuse to sign that "resignation by mutual agreement" letter. I wouldn't venture a guess one way or the other.
I guess either a) he didn't fit in in the office, b) the job turned out to be not quite what he was expecting or c) he had some kind of major change of plan. None of those options really makes for a good rumour.
Being the head of office IT support for a bunch of techies is always a tough job.
2009/10/31 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
As I said above, he wouldn't be working a month's notice if he had been fired.
You correctly qualified that with "In my experience people don't usually" the first time.
In any case, the difference between "laid off" and "fired" is often quite blurry, and people certainly often get notice when being "laid off".
Perhaps this is a wrong-side-of-the-pond issue. In the UK if an employer calls it redundancy when actually they just want to replace you they would get sued for wrongful dismissal in an instant.
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2009/10/31 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
As I said above, he wouldn't be working a month's notice if he had been fired.
You correctly qualified that with "In my experience people don't usually" the first time.
In any case, the difference between "laid off" and "fired" is often quite blurry, and people certainly often get notice when being "laid off".
Perhaps this is a wrong-side-of-the-pond issue. In the UK if an employer calls it redundancy when actually they just want to replace you they would get sued for wrongful dismissal in an instant.
Yeah. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment
Here in the US, if a company doesn't mind its unemployment tax rate going up, they can do pretty much whatever they want.
In the UK, what, if anything, can a company do if they want to redefine a position altogether?
2009/11/1 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
Yeah. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment
Here in the US, if a company doesn't mind its unemployment tax rate going up, they can do pretty much whatever they want.
In the UK, what, if anything, can a company do if they want to redefine a position altogether?
If you are genuinely redefining the position so the existing job will no longer exist then you can make the employee redundant (you have to pay at least the statutory redundancy pay, which depends on length of service). If you are just using it as an excuse to get rid of someone you don't like, you'll get sued. If you want to fire someone they have to have done something either really seriously wrong or have received lots of warnings and not improved.
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2009/11/1 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
In the UK, what, if anything, can a company do if they want to redefine a position altogether?
If you are genuinely redefining the position so the existing job will no longer exist then you can make the employee redundant (you have to pay at least the statutory redundancy pay, which depends on length of service).
Like, say, if you have two offices that combine into one big office?
2009/11/1 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2009/11/1 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
In the UK, what, if anything, can a company do if they want to redefine a position altogether?
If you are genuinely redefining the position so the existing job will no longer exist then you can make the employee redundant (you have to pay at least the statutory redundancy pay, which depends on length of service).
Like, say, if you have two offices that combine into one big office?
Yes, that would generally result in genuine redundancies.
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 8:19 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2009/11/1 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2009/11/1 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
In the UK, what, if anything, can a company do if they want to redefine a position altogether?
If you are genuinely redefining the position so the existing job will no longer exist then you can make the employee redundant (you have to pay at least the statutory redundancy pay, which depends on length of service).
Like, say, if you have two offices that combine into one big office?
Yes, that would generally result in genuine redundancies.
And, of course, is exactly what the Wikimedia Foundation just did.
2009/11/1 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
Like, say, if you have two offices that combine into one big office?
Yes, that would generally result in genuine redundancies.
And, of course, is exactly what the Wikimedia Foundation just did.
Sure, but in this case there wasn't any duplication of roles between the offices, to the best of my knowledge. The Staff page on the foundation site mentions two people involved with Office IT Support, Ariel Glenn and Steve Kent. I may be completely wrong, but I was under the impression they both worked in the main office prior to the move. I didn't think there was anyone in the usability office handling IT support - half the group are programmers, so I doubt they have many problems on a day-to-day basis and someone could go over from the main office pretty quickly if needed.
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 8:54 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2009/11/1 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
Like, say, if you have two offices that combine into one big office?
Yes, that would generally result in genuine redundancies.
And, of course, is exactly what the Wikimedia Foundation just did.
Sure, but in this case there wasn't any duplication of roles between the offices, to the best of my knowledge.
But "the best of your knowledge" is that you don't know what happened. You're quick to criticize the rumor that he was fired, but then you yourself engage in speculating that he wasn't fired (and presenting that speculation as fact). We don't know what happened. It could be any one of a large number of things.
If you'd like to respond to this, fine. I'm done commenting on this subthread. Sorry for the multiple messages, everyone.
Anthony
2009/11/1 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 8:54 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2009/11/1 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
Like, say, if you have two offices that combine into one big office?
Yes, that would generally result in genuine redundancies.
And, of course, is exactly what the Wikimedia Foundation just did.
Sure, but in this case there wasn't any duplication of roles between the offices, to the best of my knowledge.
But "the best of your knowledge" is that you don't know what happened. You're quick to criticize the rumor that he was fired, but then you yourself engage in speculating that he wasn't fired (and presenting that speculation as fact). We don't know what happened. It could be any one of a large number of things.
I have never heard of someone being fired and working a month's notice and without evidence to the contrary I will assume that the WMF aren't trying to intentionally mislead us about who is and isn't working for them. That leaves me to assume he was not fired. There are all kinds of other possibilities; I've listed the ones I think are most likely earlier in this thread.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/11/1 Anthony:
Here in the US, if a company doesn't mind its unemployment tax rate going up, they can do pretty much whatever they want.
In the UK, what, if anything, can a company do if they want to redefine a position altogether?
If you are genuinely redefining the position so the existing job will no longer exist then you can make the employee redundant (you have to pay at least the statutory redundancy pay, which depends on length of service). If you are just using it as an excuse to get rid of someone you don't like, you'll get sued. If you want to fire someone they have to have done something either really seriously wrong or have received lots of warnings and not improved.
Employee protection an union rights are significantly weaker in the U.S. than in most developed country. Some states are significantly worse than others. Protecting the rights of workers is on the slippery slope to socialism, and that would damage the ideological purity of free enterprise.
Employers in other countries need to be more creative in offering undesirables solutions that they can't refuse.
Ec
I can think of approximately 500,000 other issues that it would perhaps be more productive for us to argue about on this list.
[general comment]
Thanks, Pharos
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/11/1 Anthony:
Here in the US, if a company doesn't mind its unemployment tax rate going up, they can do pretty much whatever they want.
In the UK, what, if anything, can a company do if they want to redefine a position altogether?
If you are genuinely redefining the position so the existing job will no longer exist then you can make the employee redundant (you have to pay at least the statutory redundancy pay, which depends on length of service). If you are just using it as an excuse to get rid of someone you don't like, you'll get sued. If you want to fire someone they have to have done something either really seriously wrong or have received lots of warnings and not improved.
Employee protection an union rights are significantly weaker in the U.S. than in most developed country. Some states are significantly worse than others. Protecting the rights of workers is on the slippery slope to socialism, and that would damage the ideological purity of free enterprise.
Employers in other countries need to be more creative in offering undesirables solutions that they can't refuse.
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Pharos wrote:
I can think of approximately 500,000 other issues that it would perhaps be more productive for us to argue about on this list.
So just because you have a personal dislike for a comment you want to call it arguing. You're making far too big a deal of a casual response to Thomas.
Ec
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
If you are genuinely redefining the position so the existing job will no longer exist then you can make the employee redundant (you have to pay at least the statutory redundancy pay, which depends on length of service). If you are just using it as an excuse to get rid of someone you don't like, you'll get sued. If you want to fire someone they have to have done something either really seriously wrong or have received lots of warnings and not improved.
Employee protection and union rights are significantly weaker in the U.S. than in most developed countries. Some states are significantly worse than others. Protecting the rights of workers is on the slippery slope to socialism, and that would damage the ideological purity of free enterprise.
Employers in other countries need to be more creative in offering undesirables solutions that they can't refuse.
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 2:56 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Pharos wrote:
I can think of approximately 500,000 other issues that it would perhaps be more productive for us to argue about on this list.
So just because you have a personal dislike for a comment you want to call it arguing. You're making far too big a deal of a casual response to Thomas.
Ec
I agree with Pharos on this one. I don't take issue with one particular response, it's the whole thread. There are *much* better things we could argue about. Whether or not the sky is blue sounds like a better debate, even.
-Chad
FYI my comment was on the whole thread, not about any particular response.
Hence the "[general comment]" disclaimer.
Thanks, Pharos
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 4:28 AM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 2:56 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Pharos wrote:
I can think of approximately 500,000 other issues that it would perhaps be more productive for us to argue about on this list.
So just because you have a personal dislike for a comment you want to call it arguing. You're making far too big a deal of a casual response to Thomas.
Ec
I agree with Pharos on this one. I don't take issue with one particular response, it's the whole thread. There are *much* better things we could argue about. Whether or not the sky is blue sounds like a better debate, even.
-Chad
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2009/11/2 Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com:
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 2:56 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Pharos wrote:
I can think of approximately 500,000 other issues that it would perhaps be more productive for us to argue about on this list.
So just because you have a personal dislike for a comment you want to call it arguing. You're making far too big a deal of a casual response to Thomas.
Ec
I agree with Pharos on this one. I don't take issue with one particular response, it's the whole thread. There are *much* better things we could argue about. Whether or not the sky is blue sounds like a better debate, even.
I'm happy arguing about this. No-one is forcing you to do so. If you want to start another thread about the colour of the sky, go right ahead.
Why can't people on this list learn how to ignore threads? It is very easy to do. You just don't click on them when they appear in your inbox. I'm not interested in everything that is discussed on this list, but I don't complain about other people discussing it; I just ignore it.
2009/11/2 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com
I'm happy arguing about this. No-one is forcing you to do so. If you want to start another thread about the colour of the sky, go right ahead.
Why can't people on this list learn how to ignore threads? It is very easy to do. You just don't click on them when they appear in your inbox. I'm not interested in everything that is discussed on this list, but I don't complain about other people discussing it; I just ignore it.
Why can't people learn when a discussion is irritating other people, why
can't people learn which discussions are most useful to have, why can't people learn that they might frustrate the very reason for existance of this list? Why can't people learn to realize when to shut up?
2009/11/2 effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com:
2009/11/2 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com
I'm happy arguing about this. No-one is forcing you to do so. If you want to start another thread about the colour of the sky, go right ahead.
Why can't people on this list learn how to ignore threads? It is very easy to do. You just don't click on them when they appear in your inbox. I'm not interested in everything that is discussed on this list, but I don't complain about other people discussing it; I just ignore it.
Why can't people learn when a discussion is irritating other people, why
can't people learn which discussions are most useful to have, why can't people learn that they might frustrate the very reason for existance of this list? Why can't people learn to realize when to shut up?
I do know when a discussion is irritating people - they make that very clear. What I don't understand is why it irritates them when they could so easily ignore it. There are no limits on how many threads we can have, so saying there are other more useful discussions is a complete non-argument. There are two solutions to this problem - people can ignore the threads they aren't interested in at negligible cost to themselves, or other people can stop discussing the things they are interested it, which is obviously a cost in itself. The former seems like a better solution to me...
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org