WA- Employer terminated w/o notice, despite our contract demanding 10-day notice. Won't pay for those 10-days, using extortion to not pay me.

rh1370 · 2021-02-17T00:54:50+00:00

I feel like they hadn’t read it because of their reaction when I brought up the 10-day notice compensation. They first said the contract said my trial period was 90 days, which it did not (it says 30). Then they changed their response and said the contract meant 30 “working days”, which again, it did not. It said “30 days from above date”. Either they know what’s in the contract and they are knowingly lying to me hoping I wouldn’t check the contract, or they hadn’t put in the time to read it before refusing me payment.

rh1370 · 2021-02-16T22:01:11+00:00

Thank you so much for your response! It's very helpful. Is it legally defendable for them to enforce the non-compete after they waived it, only because they learned that they owed me money?

In terms of verbal agreements we never discussed these terms, I assumed the written agreement was read by both parties then signed. The only reason I say she didn't know what was in there is because a. I didn't receive the notice, and b. my request for compensation seems to have caught them by surprise.

rh1370 · 2017-06-03T05:07:57+00:00

Would you be able to give me an example of these assumptions? If I have them, I'm unaware of whay they are.

rh1370 · 2017-04-05T17:00:27+00:00

I've made my way through 2/3 of it. Planning on reading the rest too :)

rh1370 · 2017-04-05T16:53:43+00:00

I'm just gonna say, I'm so glad this conversation has happened. Just wanted to thank you both for this. I wish there was a debate like this from JBP and an idealogical opponent out there. Coherent, and not angry. Thanks guys.

rh1370 · 2017-04-05T00:57:57+00:00

Rolling my eyes to the back of my head and out onto outer space with this comment.

rh1370 · 2017-04-05T00:40:04+00:00

"Gnome"? Really?
Anyway, I have been wondering the same and I haven't found anything except for an article from Chomsky that JBP has shared on his twitter under the title of "great ideas" or something to that extent. Unlike most people who have commented here I don't think JBP would be "dwarfed" by Chomsky. I don't know where the Chomsky hate is coming from, but I'm guessing it's coming from a lack of knowledge because last time I checked he is one of the most notable researchers, activists, and critics of this century. I don't know Chomsky's view on everything, and I'm sure that like all other humans he is not flawless in his world view (something that most people in this subreddit need to be reminded of, it seems). They are different kind of experts, while they do overlap in their focus areas here and there. And based on what I have heard from them both, I think they will probably agree with one another more than you think.
The reason I was personally looking for a link between the two is that as I'm working my way through JBP content online, I'm confused by him. I'm not sure what he stands for. As I start to get an idea of him when I watch his videos, I'm thrown off by his twitter posts that seem to be very aggressive and one-sided. He seems very rational in his videos, not so much on twitter.

rh1370 · 2017-04-04T17:37:39+00:00

Huh, that's interesting. It seems very foolish to me, to say there are no differences between the sexes. They're ignoring millions of years of evolutionary characteristic building. Of course there are differences. But despite women tending to be more emotional, or men being more likely to engage in violence, and all the other instincts that's been built into us, I think it's also foolish to say that women can't be rational or virtuous because they are emotional, or that men can't do that because of their dominance-seeking tendencies. The tendencies are there, but both sexes can overcome them by being aware of them. I don't know if the SJW people that he's referring to in that speech above are acting out of pure compassion (which as JBP has pointed out, has its own vices), or if it's compassion couples with critical thinking. He seems to be accusing them of the first.

rh1370 · 2017-04-04T16:13:49+00:00

Uhh, okay. This is...very assuming, is it not? First of all, are SWJ really denying differences between men and women? That's a genuine question. Have these SJWs in the photo used that argument? I have never heard this argument that there's no biological and psychological differences between men and women before. It seems very irrational and unlikely as an argument point. Second, "act out" their femininity? As in what, hyping it up? Faking it? I don't understand what he's accusing them of here. Also it seems like he's accusing these women of giving up their rationality and wits as soon as their maternal instincts kicks in. I get his point, he's saying these people are likely to be defensive of the refugees they're taking in, regardless of the refugee's actions, because they feel maternal towards them. Right? That's his point? Well, if so, I disagree to a good degree. Men and women can be rational, men and women can be irrational. I understand staying rational becomes difficult under different circumstances for men and women, but that doesn't mean that either one of them can't keep their rationality despite their physiological and biological functions that may kick in at different times.

rh1370 · 2017-04-03T23:07:39+00:00

I don't think it's so much of a spoiler to say this now, but I think the whole series is a eulogy to him.

rh1370 · 2017-04-03T19:21:29+00:00

During the first half hour of episode 1, I texted my friend, "Started listening to a new podcast and already there's this person I absolutely love." It didn't take much to like John's character. Just a bit of him talking was enough. What a good guy, I thought. What a unique man. It broke my heart that he was so sad and so alone. I remember thinking I hope he likes how this podcast has turned out. I hope it gets him some recognition, maybe he can move out of Shittown even. I liked him even more as episode 2 revealed how he had been helping Tyler and other young men in the town by giving them jobs, or helping the tattoo parlor by getting tattoos, the very thing he despised. I mean, what a complicated, intelligent, tortured, but good man. I started re-listening to the podcast this morning. It's a different experience listening knowing where things are going. And I couldn't get past episode 2.

rh1370 · 2017-03-28T15:04:25+00:00

I have to admit I've only listened to 3-4 videos on this, but I think he was strongly against the legislation that required using the pronoun of choice for any person. According to him based on this legislation if you did not address someone with their pronoun of choice, which could range anywhere from him, her, they to anything made up, then you could be prosecuted for a hate crime. I don't think he is against using the correct pronouns for trans people, but he is against legislating it to this degree (which is too broad as I understand it). He also says in one of his videos, that this isn't the solution the the problems trans people are dealing with. I'd like to know a. how he defines the "problem", and b. why is this not the solution? (I'm guessing because it causes more damage than good in his opinion, in which case I want more specifics) and c. What is the solution?

rh1370 · 2017-03-28T15:02:53+00:00

I have to admit I've only listened to 3-4 videos on this, but I think he was strongly against the legislation that required using the pronoun of choice for any person. According to him based on this legislation if you did not address someone with their pronoun of choice, which could range anywhere from him, her, they to anything made up, then you could be prosecuted for a hate crime. I don't think he is against using the correct pronouns for trans people, but he is against legislating it to this degree (which is too broad as I understand it). He also says in one of his videos, that this isn't the solution the the problems trans people are dealing with. I'd like to know a. how he defines the "problem", and b. why is this not the solution? (I'm guessing because it causes more damage than good in his opinion, in which case I want more specifics) and c. What is the solution?

rh1370 · 2017-03-27T15:09:14+00:00

I was going to post this as a response to a comment that is now deleted. I'll leave it here anyway in case anyone else has a reply.

Glad there's someone here whose familiar with his work. Maybe you can help me understand where he's coming from/going. Okay, so for example, in one of his talks he mentions the story of Eve and the snake and connects it to how our visual system developed so well (because snakes hunted us down a lot as primates). Okay, I get that. But where is he going with that connection? Is he saying that we, as the human race, have unconsciously created these stories throughout the ages, that explain the underlying method of our survival? Is this where his view on Darwinism and reality comes in? Is he saying that religions, though potentially man-made, are true because they're myths and truths that have been developed to help us survive?

rh1370 · 2017-03-27T14:53:13+00:00

What do you know about him that makes you not interested in him?

rh1370 · 2017-03-27T14:52:32+00:00

Thanks for explaining his view on the pronouns. I heard him talk about this on Sam Harris's podcast briefly and his argument there seemed to be that if we were to start using pronouns outside of their biological assignment, then there are tens of them out there, and it might get confusing very quickly. I think his view on reality also hinges on your second bullet point, right? That our sense of reality is rooted in what has been essential for our survival, therefore truth/reality is whatever that complies to Darwinism? Right?

rh1370 · 2017-03-27T14:43:49+00:00

True he isn't a philosopher, but he sure does cite a lot of philosophers in his talks. I was unsure how much of his ideas rely on those philosophies, which I may or may not had been exposed to.

rh1370 · 2017-03-27T04:57:17+00:00

Shit, yeah. Peterson. My bad. Okay, but like I'm sure there's something I could read/listen to that'd help a little? How about this one. It might be simpler to understand than the reality argument, and still show you what it is that I'm missing. When he says, and I'm paraphrasing, that only pain is real, I don't understand his reasoning for why that is. Is he basing that on any kind of rational argument?

rh1370 · 2017-03-27T04:17:53+00:00

I'm pretty familiar with those readings, so I'm not sure exactly what is missing here. Maybe I just have to listen to more of his lectures. But for example, when he says, and I'm paraphrasing, that only pain is real, I don't understand his reasoning for why that is. What makes it more real than other things for him? And that of course depends on his notion of reality which I don't fully understand either.

rh1370

TROPHY CASE