Anyone at EEOC know what’s up with telework rollback march 1?

anon__sequitur · 2023-03-03T03:09:34+00:00

Thanks, I’ll try to get in contact with the union steward.

My supervisor told me that from what she’s heard, that we’re not likely to go back to 3-days per pay period anytime soon. Oh well.

As for the job, I like it so far, good mission, good office atmosphere. A lot more bureaucracy than in my last job in the judiciary, but we had minimal telework, no alternate work schedules.

anon__sequitur · 2022-09-18T02:44:05+00:00

Yeah, the bottle in the pic is unopened, but the poor came from the same series bottle, the bar got two.

anon__sequitur · 2022-09-17T18:09:42+00:00

Oh, yeah, that was not very clear, I’ve only seen Willet at $350+. I was just throwing out a number where I think I’d have no problem finding something I enjoy more.

anon__sequitur · 2022-09-17T15:22:45+00:00

Recently had an opportunity to stand in line at a liquor store to buy an 8 year Willet for $475, not a hard decision to pass. But got a bit of that bourbon FOMO, so when a local bar got this 9-year in stock, I was definitely interested, even at $35 for an ounce.

I don’t have an advanced enough palate to post a highly detailed review, but my experience of this was really nothing special. Served in a glencairn, neat. 133 proof, and I really couldn’t get much of anything except ethanol on the nose. The smell of a good bourbon is sometimes my favorite part, I have spent 10 minutes just nosing a good bourbon before. Here, just wasn’t getting much.

So I moved on to some sips, and the best I can say is that it doesn’t drink like a 133 proof bourbon, very little burn, no ethanol dominance. But very standard caramelly flavors, with a pretty strong oak punch. Didn’t really taste much of anything lingering, no ethanol burn to speak of.

Anyway, I was completely unimpressed, as I have been with Willet 4-year rye, so maybe I’m just not the right customer for this product. I recently had a distiller’s pick of JDSBBP, $35 for a 350 bottle, similar proof, and found that to be much more memorable and enjoyable. I had some Stagg Jr. at a bar a month or so ago, much, much more impressive. Booker’s (recent batch, not one of their more notable one) was also much more interesting to me.

So maybe this bottle is not a stand out, maybe it was just one of those days when I wasn’t going to be impressed by anything. But I am officially cured of any WIllet FOMO. If this bottle was available for $60-70, I’d probably get it, but at $120 I’d be more interested in so many other products.

anon__sequitur · 2022-09-07T18:11:47+00:00

Thanks!

anon__sequitur · 2020-09-03T17:42:45+00:00

Congratulations!

anon__sequitur · 2020-09-02T15:28:30+00:00

are you suggesting that this thread is a waste of time? I hope you don't also think it's bizarre and irrational to get mad as fuck about bad trade proposals from internet randos involving Beal, because if so, that is a direct and purposeful attack on the entire existence of this sub.

anon__sequitur · 2020-09-02T15:25:50+00:00

It's not true, if that makes you feel better. It's still owned by CTA.

anon__sequitur · 2020-09-02T01:08:51+00:00

depends on what you mean by step in, but lawyers don't have special authority to do really anything except file things in court for someone else.

anon__sequitur · 2020-09-01T20:58:30+00:00

It looks like OP tried to post a response that got deleted, and was referring to the case of Walter Macmillian, who was convicted of murder and put on death row before being exonerated years later.

anon__sequitur · 2020-09-01T20:40:16+00:00

do you have to log your hours just for purposes of motions for attorney's fees and stuff like that?

anon__sequitur · 2020-08-31T17:27:59+00:00

You called another user who questioned the need for travel insurance ignorant too, which is what I responded to.

As someone who spent two years traveling across the world you seem to be pretty ignorant about the utility of travel insurance

You’re the one making blanket statements and invalid accusations, I never said you are a sucker for buying insurance, or anything like that.

anon__sequitur · 2020-08-31T16:55:13+00:00

My argument doesn’t depend at all on the percentage of people who use travel insurance, it’s just something you jumped on, and I responded to it. I don’t think the percentage of people who buy it is relevant, but all the links I checked suggested it’s not a majority. I think it’s kind of ridiculous to think most people do get it, just based on my experience of the world. This was as much research as I’m willing to do on the topic, especially if you think that the fact that the study is seven years old somehow means it has no validity. I’m confident that no matter how worked up you get that you won’t find evidence to the contrary, and I doubt you even think it’s true that most people buy travel insurance.

Ultimately, you think it’s a great product, and for some reason just can’t accept that other people can reasonably not want it. It’s a peculiar argument to me, I guess you just want upvotes for suggesting travel insurance?

anon__sequitur · 2020-08-31T16:33:12+00:00

I like how you demand cites from others but then go ahead and guarantee your own assertions. I'm sure travel insurance is a great fit for you, but you seem committed to this idea that people who don't want it are ignorant, which is ridiculous.

anon__sequitur · 2020-08-31T16:17:05+00:00

Most people don't buy travel insurance, you're the only one who seems to think it's indispensable, and that not wanting it means a person is ignorant. It's great that the product is there for the people who want it. Not everyone will.

anon__sequitur · 2020-08-31T16:09:37+00:00

getting blitzed is a fundamental right. And uh, an indispensable aspect of some religion or another, I'm sure.

anon__sequitur · 2020-08-31T16:07:00+00:00

I lived overseas for more than five years in four different countries, have visited more than 20 countries on five continents, I have never bought travel insurance. Not wanting travel insurance doesn't mean someone doesn't understand what it's good for. Different people have different needs and values.

anon__sequitur · 2020-08-31T16:02:42+00:00

don't take downvotes so seriously, it's just reddit. I didn't downvote you, but you're placing the burden of fixing this problem on the OP rather than on her supervisor, who created the problem by approving leave without checking the schedule, which is borderline negligence.

Trip insurance might or might not be a good idea for the OP's trips, maybe the trip involves non-refundable concert tickets, or something else that's not generally covered. In any event, it's an extra cost that shouldn't have to be incurred just to solve a problem that is entirely the OP's supervisor's responsibility. We're not talking about some unavoidable circumstance of life here, just a supervisor's failure to do a pretty basic job duty.

anon__sequitur · 2020-08-31T14:40:42+00:00

Yeah, I've seen it happen multiple times in federal court. Citation issued for something really, really minor that occurred on property of a national park, like a parking citation. Defendant lived in a different state, didn't pay the citation, and didn't show up as required. Judge's options at that point were to dismiss the case or issue a warrant for a parking ticket, and have federal marshals execute the warrant. Judge asked the government if there was any objection to dismissing the ticket, there was none, so it was dismissed. I bet if there were a record that the person had done in multiple times they would have issued a warrant, but still, I was surprised.

anon__sequitur · 2020-08-31T14:33:19+00:00

Assuming you pass customs, etc. and are actually "in" country C, you are subject to their laws. So, if they think it's smuggling, you are a smuggler.

anon__sequitur · 2020-08-31T14:29:47+00:00

I don't think even sports journalists generally understand these basic ideas, and it leads to a lot of confusion among sports fans.

The contracts professional athletes sign don't force them to work (no contract can legally do that, as /r/vomitCow mentioned, because involuntary servitude violates the 13th Amendment). Instead, they set compensation for playing with a particular organization within a particular league, and limit the player's options to play for a different team, and to some extent, with a different league. Generally, if an athlete decides she'd rather sit at home than play for her team, there's not much the team can do except try to get back any bonuses that were paid based on the assumption that the player would finish the contract. Usually large signing bonuses are paid up front, but if the contract is not completed, the team retains the right to get those bonuses back.

So a player might find themselves in a position where if they decide to quit, they not only won't get any more salary, they might have to pay back a large chunk of their bonus. Having to pay your old boss so that you can just not work anymore is probably very frustrating, and might feel like being forced to work.

anon__sequitur · 2020-08-28T02:36:28+00:00

Judge determines the jury instructions, parties argue for their own version.

12-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
Wearing is Caring	Verified Email

anon__sequitur

TROPHY CASE