No comment
5 Likes
Goddamn, Surreal, get online for FFA sessions!
4 Likes
1B you just referred to it as âSection 1: Bâ⌠the subsections are part of the section. just because i chose to separate them into a readable format doesnât mean theyâre now part of some elusive concept known as a âsubsectionâ but are somehow not included in a âsectionâ
2A does apply to commerce. read it like a paragraph.
Any citizen of Firestone so currently employed, whether employed in an officially recognized government department(s) or a private business(s) officially licensed by the Department of Commerce
No employee shall, through contractual means or otherwise, waive their right
section 4 no, amendments do not require executive consent, only that the department be informed. in which case, if the amendment is stupid, my hope is that 1. dept heads will be less likely to do it if they know it has to be public and 2. people will complain to the governor if itâs a bad amendment. the governor approves entire handbooks so if itâs obvious a dept head is trying to screw over their employees, the governor will presumably not approve the handbook.
4C in lieu of an official legal definition, dictionary definitions have been used in the courts. any definition of âinvestigationâ should work just fine. the reason i included this âcumbersomeâ clause is because employees under investigation for unprofessionalism or something similar should know & have a chance to clean their act of. the
4D is a definition of âadministrationâ, not of âdisciplinaryâ
4F âŚdepartments can only punish people for things that are against the rules and regulations, and when they do punish people, they must follow their own guidelines set out for violations of such rules. iâm not sure what youâre alluding to here. the department is the liable partyâthe employee is seeking redress. i would think that was obvious.
4G they are taking the department to civil court to appeal the punishment. civil appeal.
section 5, ok
section 6, regardless of what dps may hand down, itâs always ULTIMATELY the hands of the department staff that impose the disciplinary action.
5 Likes
I would agree with you if you put A. and B. but you explicitly decided to put 1A. and 1B.. You can say whatever your intent is but the way people interpret is what matters.
âEmployeeâ is already defined as an employee of a government department in Section 1. And seeing as 2A. is cut off from Section 2, the initial definition is not likely to pass on. Also, Section 2 does not redefine âemployeeâ but simply uses the term âemployedâ.
Ah yes nice but what is a good idea is not the concern here. The Act is not clear enough on whether amendments should constitute âshall first be approved by the Governorâ or not.
Yeah but isnât the point of this law to clear ambiguity⌠the courts have ruled erratically in the past and using Oxford Dictionary for legal principles isnât great. Also, I donât know what Congress wants but isnât the major concern with the old law the problem with âinvestigation noticesâ being required for however minor an investigation?
The issue here is that you defined âregarding punitive or disciplinary measuresâ to include âterminations, strikes, suspensions, promotions, hirings, or other measures affecting employeesâ general rapportâ in Section 4A, regardless of whether it was the component of another definition. Although I must say I did somewhat read it incorrectly but the point still stands that the Act includes these acts to be âpunitive or disciplinary measuresâ and disciplinary measures require a right to provide a defense. Once again, maybe it wonât hold up in court but the general gist of the law is just vague
What I was saying is that âstandard disciplinary systemâ isnât properly defined although it can be interpreted. And no, itâs not âobviousâ anywhere in law who is liable as the prior employment rights allowed both the liable department or the liable employer (/ administration) to be sued in civil court, while here it isnât specified whatsoever.
A âcivil appealâ can definitely mean an appeal to the Supreme Court based off of a civil case, and now a new term has been added in the mix while it has already always been âchallengeâ and not âappealâ, which could cause confusion but it doesnt really matter I guess
Alright, but you do see the infinite loop that it creates? If DPS PSBs someone in a LEA and the LEA subsequently is forced to terminate them, then the employee sues the LEA as they â under this Act â probably canât sue DPS but the LEA uses the viable excuse that employees with a PSB must be terminated (in the rules and regs) and therefore any termination on the basis of a PSB canât be overturned? Idk if you guys want that, but thatâs how it (approximately) is atm
4 Likes
Iâm no legal expert but I believe the department. DPS doesnât terminate, they tell the department to. If it is proven false, theyâll probably have it so dps has to like overturn it
or sum
4 Likes
DPS orders terminations (EDIT) after finding an individual has broken DPS or Departmental policy, which the department is responsible to make sure all employees are in line with at all times, DPS doesnât terminate employees themselves.
4 Likes
SECTION 2B: The Firestone Department of Public Safety may fire any employee of any department the Firestone Department of Public Safety has jurisdiction over; as long as they are not the department head of the department in question, and a message to the department head has been sent concerning the termination.
uh i dont think so. might have been in an old bill. but
SECTION 3: Before terminating an employee of any department affiliated with the Department of Public Safety, the Secretary of Public Safety is required to attempt to speak to the department head beforehand to see if they have any objections with the termination.
4 Likes
neither of those sections are in my bill so im confused at what youâre asking me here
4 Likes
Firestone: Has complaints about employment rights bill.
Also Firestone: Doesnât contact congress to address their concerns.
Again, also Firestone:
sorry kerb, Idk why this replied to you. Meant to reply to the main thread)
4 Likes
none of the complaints are valid.
doesnât understand even though it doesnt say âformer employeesâ you can still sue even after being fired if unlawful, or any disciplinary action.
5 Likes
people who are organizing the protest and spreading the lie are uneducated beings
5 Likes
im replying to himâŚ
4 Likes
The courts shouldnât be carrying out duties related to the internal affairs of employers. Like I said, in my opinion, the only things that should be going to court are matters arising under law or the constitution of this state. An employment rights case should only occur if some right or law was violated in the process of punishment which would activate reasonable judicial intervention.
4 Likes
Just amended it so there is no confusionâŚ
4 Likes
Ok cool I was talking about the fact that itâs called a âcivil appealâ for some reason
4 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
2 Likes