You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 03, 2016, 08:11:57 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: What's in the news?  (Read 172263 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Dashenka

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #925 on: May 13, 2015, 11:09:27 AM »
So that meeting Kerry had in Russia..... bit of a farce really.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32700259

Quote
Mr Lavrov said at the joint press conference that the talks had helped Moscow and Washington improve mutual understanding.
Earlier, he said that Russia was ready to co-operate with the US but only on an "equal basis" and without coercion.

In other words...

It's not gonna happen because (one of) the two parties doesn't know what the word equal means.

Offline Zakharra

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #926 on: May 13, 2015, 11:16:50 AM »
  Dashenka, it would be more accurate that both sides don't know what equal means in this case.

 Onto something different. The beaches of New Jersey can kill you, literally now.  http://news.yahoo.com/ammo-parts-dropped-jersey-beach-during-replenishment-131735355.html

Offline eBadger

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #927 on: May 13, 2015, 11:20:17 AM »
So, you're saying that an employer has the right to fire any employee that breaks any kind of law? Personally, I'm not sure if it should be that way.

Why not?  Is breaking the law an inferior reason than not being fast enough or doing some bad math, which gets people booted all the time?  Given a choice to have an employee that doesn't behave this way, and one that does, who would you hope gets employed?

Corporations also have to respond to the issues of public opinion and social media.  Note the article above mentions another employee too:

Quote
Several social media posts also named the second individual, saying he worked for Cognex Corporation. A company spokeswoman said the views expressed in the video were "reprehensible" and inconsistent with Cognex's values.

So yes, criminal behavior - and more pertinently here, behavior that is intentionally public, that an employee did while forcing themselves in front of the nightly news to gain as much attention as possible, that is hostile and vulgar?  Absolutely I think that's a great thing to be fired for. 

The other examples: posting here on E is anonymous and layered behind levels of privacy.  My kink isn't being broadcast to kids; anyone who sees it has made a conscious and very intentional effort to do so.  If the national news posted my picture next to an incest non-con scene - yeah, I'd expect to be fired.  Driving drunk...depends a lot on the situation, which ultimately is going to be the company's call.  Keep in mind that firing and re-hiring is expensive.  Are they a driver?  Someone with a past history of abuse?  In a critical position?  Do you want a DUI piloting your plane, or operating on you?  Steering your boat?  If it doesn't affect their job...most likely their company isn't going to care.  If it does present an unacceptable risk, I would hope the company would act.  People sue companies all the time for not taking preemptive action

Offline BeorningTopic starter

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #928 on: May 13, 2015, 11:48:25 AM »
In the U.S., at least, there's no law that says that an employer cannot fire an employee because they have been convicted of a crime.  Practically speaking, I doubt anyone would get fired for, say, jaywalking (or if the employer would even find out about such a minor offense), but "people who have broken the law" isn't a legally protected class here.

Hmm. But doesn't the employer have to provide some sort of rationale when terminating someone's contract? If so, then I'd love to see what the rationale in this case could be.

At a bare minimum, there's going to be a conversation with Human Resources.  The 'drunk driver' example could possibly be mitigated if the employee were willing to go through an alcoholism program.  However, if the employee has to deal with heavy equipment, the employer could rightfully see the possibility that someone who would operate a car while intoxicated might operate a forklift, or passenger train while intoxicated.

I agree with that :) That's why, in my example, the drunk driver is an office assistant. Would a company fire an office assistant who gets one-time DUI on their weekend?

Why not?  Is breaking the law an inferior reason than not being fast enough or doing some bad math, which gets people booted all the time?

Yes, actually. "Doing bad math" means "not being competent". Meanwhile, having broken a law doesn't necessarily have any bearing on one's competence at work.

Quote
Given a choice to have an employee that doesn't behave this way, and one that does, who would you hope gets employed?

My opinion is that this kind of behaviour should be of no concern to the employer. What an employee does in their free time shouldn't be, in most cases, their employer's business.

Quote
Corporations also have to respond to the issues of public opinion and social media.

I'd agree with this argument, if that guy was, say, a PR representative for the company. But he wasn't - he was an engineer. His work wasn't being hampered in any way by the negative attention he was receiving. And let's be serious - the company wasn't going to be hurt in any way by him working there... with the possible situation of someone, say, starting a Facebook campaign of "Boycott this company, they employ a heckler". And if something like that happened, then my opinion is that the company shouldn't bow down to this kind of stupidity (yes, holding a company responsible for one employee's stupid prank done on his free time would be an utter stupidity).

Quote
The other examples: posting here on E is anonymous and layered behind levels of privacy.  My kink isn't being broadcast to kids; anyone who sees it has made a conscious and very intentional effort to do so.  If the national news posted my picture next to an incest non-con scene - yeah, I'd expect to be fired.

Really? If something like that happened to me, I'd sue.

Quote
Driving drunk...depends a lot on the situation, which ultimately is going to be the company's call.  Keep in mind that firing and re-hiring is expensive.  Are they a driver?  Someone with a past history of abuse?  In a critical position?  Do you want a DUI piloting your plane, or operating on you?  Steering your boat?  If it doesn't affect their job...most likely their company isn't going to care.  If it does present an unacceptable risk, I would hope the company would act.

You are actually arguing in favour of my point here. Sure, a company has a right not to employ a suspected alcoholic in a position where being drunk might be dangerous. But what kind of risk did that heckler guy create for his company? Aside from extremely far-fetched notion that he might turn out to be a sexual molester?

And to make things clear: I absolutely don't condone what this guy did. Heck, I fully support him the other punishments he might get, like being banned from attending sport events or being charged with sexual / verbal abuse etc. I simply don't think there's any rationale for him being fired. What next, should he lose his apartment, too?
« Last Edit: May 13, 2015, 11:50:58 AM by Beorning »

Offline Valerian

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #929 on: May 13, 2015, 11:57:28 AM »
Hmm. But doesn't the employer have to provide some sort of rationale when terminating someone's contract? If so, then I'd love to see what the rationale in this case could be.
That varies from state to state in the U.S., but in my state it's entirely possible to fire someone for no reason other than "this person didn't work out in this job".  Mind you, if that's the only reason given the employee would be very likely to be able to force the employer to pay unemployment compensation, but that doesn't prevent the company from doing the firing in the first place.

Yes, actually. "Doing bad math" means "not being competent". Meanwhile, having broken a law doesn't necessarily have any bearing on one's competence at work.
Competence at work is rarely the only issue.  Each employee generally also has to be able to get along with other employees, for example.  Knowing what this person did during his "free time" would certainly make me (and very probably a large percentage of other women) prefer to avoid him, which could have an adverse affect on the business if we were required to work together.

I'd agree with this argument, if that guy was, say, a PR representative for the company. But he wasn't - he was an engineer. His work wasn't being hampered in any way by the negative attention he was receiving. And let's be serious - the company wasn't going to be hurt in any way by him working there... with the possible situation of someone, say, starting a Facebook campaign of "Boycott this company, they employ a heckler". And if something like that happened, then my opinion is that the company shouldn't bow down to this kind of stupidity (yes, holding a company responsible for one employee's stupid prank done on his free time would be an utter stupidity).
Emphasis mine.  This was not a "stupid prank"; this was a sexually-charged threat, made in public, that broke the law.

Offline Deamonbane

  • A cynic by experience, a romantic by inclination and now a hero by necessity.
  • Knight
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Location: The world would be a sadder place without stories.
  • Gender: Male
  • Make me smile...
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #930 on: May 13, 2015, 12:04:23 PM »
For the record, using," We don't want to be associated with someone who says such things on public television," Is a valid excuse for employment termination around here.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #931 on: May 13, 2015, 12:05:46 PM »
I agree with that :) That's why, in my example, the drunk driver is an office assistant. Would a company fire an office assistant who gets one-time DUI on their weekend?

This is why I put forth the possibility that a conversation with HR was in order.  Is this a one-time thing?  Does the employee take responsibility for what was done?  Does the employee have a way to prevent future occurrences?

Yes, actually. "Doing bad math" means "not being competent". Meanwhile, having broken a law doesn't necessarily have any bearing on one's competence at work.

It may, however, have a bearing on how trustworthy or dependable the person is.  Taking our drunk office assistant as an example:  Said office assistant is responsible for filing clients' records.  Both being intoxicated and being hung over can impact someone's thought processes.  An important document misfiled could lead to severe consequences. 

A legitimately alcoholic employee could even pose a security risk - either by unthinkingly blabbing something while out drinking, stealing directly from the company, or selling company assets (such as leaking information that could influence stock prices.)

None of the articles specified what these two men did, but instead of offering apologies and acknowledging that they were top-shelf jerks, they came out with 'Geez, it's just a joke - everyone's doing it.'

Did they work with the public?  Did they have to interact with women - either inside or outside of the company - on a daily basis?  If you were a woman, would you feel comfortable interacting with a guy you had seen on the news, shouting what he did, and for the reasons that he did?  Would you want your mother, sister, or daughter to have to interact with him? 

Offline Cycle

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #932 on: May 13, 2015, 12:17:19 PM »
Hmm. But doesn't the employer have to provide some sort of rationale when terminating someone's contract?

To be clear, most employees in the U.S. do not have employment contracts.  Most are employees-at-will. 

There are rules that govern when an employee can be terminated for things such as whistle-blowing and retaliation:  e.g., an employer cannot fire an employee for reporting illegal conduct to a regulator.  But aside from that, yes, most employers have the right to decide who they pay to do work for them.  The employee does not have a right to the job--that is, they don't have a right to make the employer give them the employer's money.  To keep their jobs, they need to provide what the employer seeks.  And most employers care about both how the employee functions in their specific role, as well as the influence they have on the work environment/other team members.

A brilliant engineer who slobbers around the receptionist and flatulates openly in the lunch room will likely be terminated.  To stay employed, you should be good at your job, and you should be good as a person.  The idiot in that article may have been the former, but he evidently wasn't the latter.

« Last Edit: May 13, 2015, 12:55:20 PM by Cycle »

Offline eBadger

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #933 on: May 13, 2015, 01:46:34 PM »
My opinion is that this kind of behaviour should be of no concern to the employer. What an employee does in their free time shouldn't be, in most cases, their employer's business.

If the employee were to sexually harass or threaten a coworker, the company would be exposed to liability because they didn't take suitable precautions based on his previous action. 

Same if he were to molest or rape someone he worked with, or was on company property. 

Same if anyone else there did something like that, because the corporation could be argued to have a policy accepting of the attitude/threats/behavior. 

Publicity is a very real cost for a company, both negative (continuing to employ and be associated with someone like that) and positive (being seen to take a firm stance on personal rights, decency, and not being a twat).  You may not have influence on that, but at some point there's a consumer - an elected public official who decides what contractor to employ or women who think paying a bit more for services is worth not risking that tech being assigned to their service issue. 

Offline BeorningTopic starter

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #934 on: May 13, 2015, 02:16:30 PM »
As a creator of this thread, I decided to make an executive decision :) Here's a thread we can discuss this whole heckler issue further:

https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=229191.0

Now, bring on the news! :)

Offline eBadger

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #935 on: May 14, 2015, 02:52:32 PM »
Omigoshes it really happens:

Business rep offers teenage prostitute as bribe for land deal


There is definitely a great role play in there....

Offline BeorningTopic starter

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #936 on: May 15, 2015, 07:35:08 AM »
Current news from Poland: Elections! Elections!

Seriously, the coming second round of presidential elections is getting a lot of TV time here. Which isn't that suprising, considering that things are actually getting interesting: according to the polls, it seems that the current president, Komorowski, will lose to his rival, Duda. It's a situation nobody saw coming - I still remember that, half a year ago, the commenters were saying that Komorowski had virtually no chance of *losing*...

Currently, Komorowski is desperately trying to win votes... and, by doing that, he actually keeps shooting himself in the foot. He presents new ideas for his presidency... ideas that are absolutely contrary to things he said only days ago, which makes him look not really credible. Also, he just can't stop himself from saying stupid things... For example, three days ago, when he went out to talk to people on the streets, he was approached by a young guy who told him: "My sister has been looking for a job for 3 years. Now she earns only 2000 zlotys (about 600 dollars) a month. How should she make a living?". The president's wise reply: "She should get a new job and take a bank loan". Seriously???

Really, Komorowski's campaign is a disaster. Even I don't know if I'll be voting for him... and I *planned* to do so. On the other hand, I absolutely can't imagine voting for Duda, either...

BTW. A story about how political responsibility is understood here in Poland. Remember the recent UK elections? Party leaders like Clegg, Milliband and Farage resigned, after their parties didn't win the elections. Meanwhile, back here? Miller, the leader of the DLA, the party that sponsored the Cthulhu cultist Doctor Ogórek, doesn't even think of resigning. He personally forced his party to go with this candidate - but now, with Ogórek having scored a catastrophically low result, he claims no responsibility. He's all "Did something important happen? Why should I be held responsible?". No wonder that people here are so fed up with all the politicians...

Offline Cycle

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #937 on: May 15, 2015, 02:57:21 PM »
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has received the death penalty. 


Offline Skynet

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #938 on: May 15, 2015, 04:34:59 PM »
In some very sad news today, blues legend BB King passed away.  He will be missed.

Online Nimmy

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #939 on: May 15, 2015, 06:42:53 PM »
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has received the death penalty.

Not a fan of this verdict. I know it would have made me feel so much better if he was thrown in prison for the rest of his natural life, denied any appeals, and left to rot. >[ If all of the Marathon victims and their families have to live with the long-lasting impacts of his actions, he damn well should be required to as well.

Offline Cycle

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #940 on: May 15, 2015, 06:49:14 PM »
*nods*

I'm not sure how I feel about it.  I'm actually kind of surprised it came down that way.  Such a mess.  There's no good end to any of it.  Sigh.


Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #941 on: May 15, 2015, 06:52:55 PM »
Not a fan of this verdict. I know it would have made me feel so much better if he was thrown in prison for the rest of his natural life, denied any appeals, and left to rot. >[ If all of the Marathon victims and their families have to live with the long-lasting impacts of his actions, he damn well should be required to as well.

Considering the typical process of death penalty convictions, he's very likely to have a long stay before punishment is rendered.  The average length of time that prisoners were on death row in 2012 (the most recent year I could find statistics for) was 190 months, or 15+ years.  This was down slightly from 196 the year before, but the chart has a strong upward trend.

Online TheGlyphstone

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #942 on: May 15, 2015, 06:58:06 PM »
Not a fan of this verdict. I know it would have made me feel so much better if he was thrown in prison for the rest of his natural life, denied any appeals, and left to rot. >[ If all of the Marathon victims and their families have to live with the long-lasting impacts of his actions, he damn well should be required to as well.

I've got misgivings about the death penalty from time to time - but in this case, I think a death sentence is actually the best option. For a case like his, there are three outcomes:

1) Death sentence. He will spend years on death row as his lawyers exhaust appeal after appeal. Since he's so young, he'll almost certainly live long enough to actually reach the needle, but he will live with those impacts for a while.
2) Life in prison, perpetual solitary confinement for the rest of his life. This preserves his life...but frankly, I have trouble stomaching even a terrorist to the living hell that 60+ years in a tiny concrete box equates to. We are the good guys because we don't aren't supposed to do things like torture prisoners, and years in solitary, let alone life, is torture by isolation.
3) Life in prison in general population. This is the same as option 1, except less honest and more violent. He would last weeks, days, or hours (depending on how much the guards cared) before being murdered by other prisoners, likely being tortured and raped in the process. And everyone knows this is what would happen, so it's not a realistic option at all.

So yeah, death. Unless he deliberately waives his appeals, it'll be a long time till he actually dies, during which he gets to live with his crimes. And it's an honest death, not the slow cruelty of extended solitary or the sadistic lie that 'life' outside of solitary would be.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2015, 06:59:43 PM by TheGlyphstone »

Offline gaggedLouise

  • Quim Queen | Collaborative juicy writer
  • Champion
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Location: Scandinavia
  • Gender: Female
  • Bound, gagged and unarmed but still dangerous.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #943 on: May 15, 2015, 07:21:02 PM »
Emotionally I can quite understand the wish to have the guy executed, but with the long and complex procedure of appeals it's not going to bring much of a sense of closure to those in Boston who had family and friends maimed (or  killed) by the bombs.

And it really is sort of bizarre that if the need for the death penalty is defined as the right of society to protect itself, to punish such persons who have been attacking society and their fellow humans in the most open ways, then as soon as a death sentence is actually passed (for a crime that cannot be doubted), it leads to massive extra costs over many years - for appeals, court sessions, lawyers' fees and simply keeping the person alive and locked up so that he is there and neither kills himself, nor escapes, nor gets killed by other inmates.

I don't support capital punishment in general - but one can't help feeling it would be better for everyone if the guy was to be hanged within two months of the sentence.

Offline Dice

  • Ooh, shiny.
  • Lord
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Location: Middle of nowhere, Australia
  • Gender: Male
  • Autocorrect will do its thing. Sorry about that.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #944 on: May 16, 2015, 12:33:31 AM »
Somehow I doubt too many people are going to be crying over this one. I am also willing to bet the amount of people willing to do the task is not low either. All in all though, knowing how people like him would be kept in the US prisons system, this is more humane than keeping him in there for life. Take from that what you will. 

Offline Dashenka

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #945 on: May 16, 2015, 02:59:40 AM »
I've got misgivings about the death penalty from time to time - but in this case, I think a death sentence is actually the best option. For a case like his, there are three outcomes:

1) Death sentence. He will spend years on death row as his lawyers exhaust appeal after appeal. Since he's so young, he'll almost certainly live long enough to actually reach the needle, but he will live with those impacts for a while.
2) Life in prison, perpetual solitary confinement for the rest of his life. This preserves his life...but frankly, I have trouble stomaching even a terrorist to the living hell that 60+ years in a tiny concrete box equates to. We are the good guys because we don't aren't supposed to do things like torture prisoners, and years in solitary, let alone life, is torture by isolation.
3) Life in prison in general population. This is the same as option 1, except less honest and more violent. He would last weeks, days, or hours (depending on how much the guards cared) before being murdered by other prisoners, likely being tortured and raped in the process. And everyone knows this is what would happen, so it's not a realistic option at all.

So yeah, death. Unless he deliberately waives his appeals, it'll be a long time till he actually dies, during which he gets to live with his crimes. And it's an honest death, not the slow cruelty of extended solitary or the sadistic lie that 'life' outside of solitary would be.

Option three sounds pretty good. It's in fact a death penalty, only less humane.

Offline gaggedLouise

  • Quim Queen | Collaborative juicy writer
  • Champion
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Location: Scandinavia
  • Gender: Female
  • Bound, gagged and unarmed but still dangerous.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #946 on: May 16, 2015, 06:02:57 AM »
Option three sounds pretty good. It's in fact a death penalty, only less humane.

Yeah, we can't very well provide everyone who does something of this order with their personal Spandau for the rest of their life, can we?  ::)  - I felt the same way about Anders Breivik, the mass killer from Norway who is also spending most of his time in strict personal seclusion, but is being moved back and forth periodically between two different prisons to "relieve the guards of some of the stress of handling a tough and manipulative prisoner".

Edit: Mr. Breivik is also receiving a lot of fan mail, from both men and women. I really hope that won't happen with the Boston bomber; actually I think people who are on a life term in jail or sentenced tp death should have their access to the internet and e-mail somewhat controlled, at least in democratic countries.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2015, 07:42:36 AM by gaggedLouise »

Offline Heartsink

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #947 on: May 16, 2015, 10:21:12 AM »
Edit: Mr. Breivik is also receiving a lot of fan mail, from both men and women. I really hope that won't happen with the Boston bomber; actually I think people who are on a life term in jail or sentenced tp death should have their access to the internet and e-mail somewhat controlled, at least in democratic countries.

US prisons are not as "comfortable" as prisons in Norway, I mean most motels in the US aren't as comfortable as prisons in Norway lol

I don't understand how the verdict was death penalty though, since the crime, arrest and conviction were all done in the state of Massachusetts, which abolished death penalty in 84...

I'm far more concerned about the aftermath of the bombings when police state America showed its true colors, and the recent Baltimore protests than the sentence of an already condemned man. They did murder his brother after all.

Online TheGlyphstone

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #948 on: May 16, 2015, 10:43:16 AM »
Option three sounds pretty good. It's in fact a death penalty, only less humane.

Which is why I don't sanction it. It's not simply less humane, it's a cowardly lie. If you're going to sentence someone to death, have the guts and honesty to openly condemn them to death. To do any less makes you as slimy and despicable as the person you're showing "mercy" to.

US prisons are not as "comfortable" as prisons in Norway, I mean most motels in the US aren't as comfortable as prisons in Norway lol

I don't understand how the verdict was death penalty though, since the crime, arrest and conviction were all done in the state of Massachusetts, which abolished death penalty in 84...

I'm far more concerned about the aftermath of the bombings when police state America showed its true colors, and the recent Baltimore protests than the sentence of an already condemned man. They did murder his brother after all.

He wasn't tried under Massachusetts state law, he was tried under Federal anti-terrorism laws, and Federal law still permits capital punishment.

Yeah, we can't very well provide everyone who does something of this order with their personal Spandau for the rest of their life, can we?  ::)  - I felt the same way about Anders Breivik, the mass killer from Norway who is also spending most of his time in strict personal seclusion, but is being moved back and forth periodically between two different prisons to "relieve the guards of some of the stress of handling a tough and manipulative prisoner".

Edit: Mr. Breivik is also receiving a lot of fan mail, from both men and women. I really hope that won't happen with the Boston bomber; actually I think people who are on a life term in jail or sentenced tp death should have their access to the internet and e-mail somewhat controlled, at least in democratic countries.

He got on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine...
« Last Edit: May 16, 2015, 10:45:24 AM by TheGlyphstone »

Offline gaggedLouise

  • Quim Queen | Collaborative juicy writer
  • Champion
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Location: Scandinavia
  • Gender: Female
  • Bound, gagged and unarmed but still dangerous.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #949 on: May 16, 2015, 10:51:36 AM »

He got on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine...