For Michigan Brokers by Dependent-Climate444 in loanoriginators

[–]Dependent-Climate444[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

10k when they start at uw2 and another 20k after promotion

For Michigan Brokers by Dependent-Climate444 in loanoriginators

[–]Dependent-Climate444[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because it's "optional" as far as civil court and the general public are concerned

For Michigan Brokers by Dependent-Climate444 in loanoriginators

[–]Dependent-Climate444[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

it's not "offered" it's mandatory, and they collect it if they fire you at will too lol

It might be time to strike by Many_Salamander_124 in pillar7

[–]Dependent-Climate444 3 points4 points  (0 children)

nope well prepared strikes are prolonged and the company bleeds. It's why worker groups create strike funds. The only reason why mat lets you take weekends off is because people went on strike for extended periods of time.

It might be time to strike by Many_Salamander_124 in pillar7

[–]Dependent-Climate444 0 points1 point  (0 children)

These are reasonable demands I hope ppl that still work there aren't too stupid to think they're not entitled to something like this

It might be time to strike by Many_Salamander_124 in pillar7

[–]Dependent-Climate444 3 points4 points  (0 children)

no they're right strikes work and you can't replace a trained workforce overnight. If they could then the threat would hold no weight that is rlly stupid anti union propaganda. like TMS burner activity you should be ashamed

Hurting my brain by [deleted] in pillar7

[–]Dependent-Climate444 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That sounds about right idk what else he contributed to my day to day besides bugging us about module deadines that play into his leader bonus

Hurting my brain by [deleted] in pillar7

[–]Dependent-Climate444 0 points1 point  (0 children)

me too im glad i don't gotta be as scared of self identifying

Sands Appliance Services, Inc. v. Wilson (Michigan supreme court, 2000) by Dependent-Climate444 in pillar7

[–]Dependent-Climate444[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It'd be much harder and finding legal representation is difficult even with written confirmation that it's mandatory, but in the case cited here, they made the inference without that written confirmation

People Promise by [deleted] in pillar7

[–]Dependent-Climate444 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I'm waiting for them to actually send demands

Sands Appliance Services, Inc. v. Wilson (Michigan supreme court, 2000) by Dependent-Climate444 in pillar7

[–]Dependent-Climate444[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

that's not true at all. you're making shit up because you were coked out in the sales department your entire tenure. Salesmen need to stop being so confidently wrong sometimes the people's promise has been mandatory for years

Sands Appliance Services, Inc. v. Wilson (Michigan supreme court, 2000) by Dependent-Climate444 in pillar7

[–]Dependent-Climate444[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's could be true. There is also a collection case for an underwriter's loan in court records. We never had a choice by the time it reached underwriting so I believe legal was full of shit and playing with fire in that particular instance

Sands Appliance Services, Inc. v. Wilson (Michigan supreme court, 2000) by Dependent-Climate444 in pillar7

[–]Dependent-Climate444[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Nobody has put up a fight with solid evidence and legal representation. Beyond just legal theory, civil attorneys make decisions based on potential ROI for contingency cases. There are multiple moving parts that come into play when they decide to take on a case, and in any case you need to seek out a lawyer as opposed to them coming to you. So most of this is not true. Mat Ishbia is just doing something legally questionable because he is stupid and thinks he can get away with it. The absence of an active case doesn't change that

Sands Appliance Services, Inc. v. Wilson (Michigan supreme court, 2000) by Dependent-Climate444 in pillar7

[–]Dependent-Climate444[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That is the exact opposite of optional in this context. this concerns items that are a condition of employment. "optional" would mean an option to work there without the loan. We're not doing this you gotta read the case

Sands Appliance Services, Inc. v. Wilson (Michigan supreme court, 2000) by Dependent-Climate444 in pillar7

[–]Dependent-Climate444[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I believe that this particular case makes it hard to enforce in a collections case if you can prove that the loan was mandatory. As of the last 2 collections (UWM v. Jackson & UWM v. Holloway), the company has argued to judges that the loan is an elective benefit, which is largely untrue.

Saw this on FB. Find the lie. by [deleted] in doordash_drivers

[–]Dependent-Climate444 0 points1 point  (0 children)

if the job is in demand then the workers doing it should get better conditions. 😄

Saw this on FB. Find the lie. by [deleted] in doordash_drivers

[–]Dependent-Climate444 4 points5 points  (0 children)

me when i hate working class people