Jump to content

What's with the ads?


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,156 Excellent

About kdsuomi

  • Rank
    Hive Mind Royal Larvae

Recent Profile Visitors

303 profile views
  1. And, yes, the are some things that can be very dicey to store online. Not all companies follow all the laws, or are aware of them, though. What I learned from working at a company that tries very hard to follow regulations is that many companies just don't, and these regulations, especially regarding electronic privacy, are constantly changing. GDPR was such a headache for our person figuring out how to comply with it, and it most definitely meant that fewer things could be saved electronically. Things have to be printed and stored hardcopy in actual files, and having those physical files at a person's home is not secure. The insurance related items that have to be done not electronically are usually not requirements for the insurance company, either, but for the person's employer. Insurance companies can email for more things legally than an employer can. There's a huge security issue with paychecks. In CA, a final check cannot legally be direct deposited unless the employee asks for it to be. So, someone would need to have the equipment for printing physical paychecks at home in order to comply with this law. How many companies want that?
  2. That's not what they've said, and it's also illegal in CA. You cannot require something as part of the job and not provide it, and no way would the CA teachers' union allow it. I work in a huge congregate care facility, though, where no one seems concerned about the employees, so part of the response is from that. Kids don't have great hygiene and aren't cooperative? The population where I work is far less cooperative, and there is less ability for employees and non-employees to be socially distant. It's done all over in other industries. (The teachers I know in real life absolutely do not want to have to do distance "learning" again because of how non-cooperative the students are in actually doing anything and how much of a disaster it was before. That could also be coloring things.)
  3. Many Catholics won't use Protestant materials because there is often very anti-Catholic bias, and vice versa. It's to the point where many Catholics will use secular material instead of Protestant and Protestants will do the same to avoid Catholic materials. (As someone who's been in both Protestant and Catholic churches and have read many of the materials, I definitely understand the point of view.)
  4. @LarlaB, what you said. Teachers seemingly are the only workers who can't go back to work and not die in droves, despite the fact that so many have been doing it this entire time. I mean, our state is providing PPE to schools and schools cannot open if students don't have six feet distance between each other in the classroom (and have to wear masks). All classes will be no bigger than half the normal size, either, because of the spacing requirements. If it's honestly too dangerous for teachers to work in that situation, it's too dangerous for just about anyone to work in any industry.
  5. For a long time coming, many companies who are hiring for an all remote position, have stated in job postings that those in CA aren't eligible. So, it's already been a thing, but would likely be more noticeable if remote work becomes more of a thing.
  6. Yeah, it's been a thing. However, if it becomes as widespread as many want, there absolutely will be people in the more expensive, or headache inducing, not getting the jobs. You also have the issue of different states having different thresholds for being considered exempt. If a company is looking at two people for an exempt job, and those two people are in CA and NV, the job is more likely to go to the person in NV just because the threshold is, and will remain, a lot lower in that state. Companies absolutely love when employees move out of CA but stay with the company because that employee automatically becomes much cheaper and has fewer regulations attached to him.
  7. MA has far more regulations, mainly related to insurance, than most other states. It's not necessarily a lot more expensive to have MA employees (unlike CA and NYC), but it's much more of a headache. For many companies, if one candidate is from MA and one from say VA, they'll likely go for the VA one.
  8. The most difficult states to work with are CA (by far the worse), NY, and MA. All three of those states would likely have the same issue if full-time remote working becomes more of a thing. These are things that many people don't think of when they tout how great working remotely for everyone is. It would also have implications for eligibility for things like FMLA. Now, remote workers are almost always counted as employees at the company's headquarters, so they often qualify headcount wise for the leave. However, if the company has no physical headquarters, that may change, making a lot more people ineligible.
  9. The old company also don't technically follow some important regulations (CA based company, so lots of laws) that could, if the state wanted to, end up costing a lot of money. They just don't have the equipment to do it remotely. If more companies go remote full-time, it certainly will affect CA employees, too. They'll easily get dumped for people who live in less regulated (and cheaper to work in) states.
  10. Not everyone can work at home full-time effectively, even now. The job I left a few months ago is having to put off certain very important aspects of the job until they can go back to working on-site because it can't be done remotely. At my new job, I have to be on-site a few days a week, too, because, again, certain things have to be done there. (This almost always has to do with putting something in employee files, and with so many different privacy laws now, many companies abandoned the idea of going paperless for this.) At my previous job, there were other things we couldn't do remotely, either, and they were almost all insurance related (various laws about how things are done).
  11. That's fine if your church doesn't want to sing. There are churches where it's an integral part of the service, and the government in the U.S. has no authority to tell those people they can't practice their religion. I get that people disagree with this, but no worries it's illegal to sing in church here. You can shout in someone's face while you're both not wearing masks and at a protest, but you can't sing at church while being physically distant and wearing masks. Not in response to your post...Look, I get that people on here think I'm some crazy nutjob extremist because I say maybe we should think about some things and question things. However, I actually follow all of the rules to the point where people i know laugh at me. So, let's not assume all of those who question the government is out there flouting the guidelines.
  12. That's fine for you to say when you're not in the situation, though.
  13. Well, they weren't the people in charge because they said the purpose was to flatten the curve. Newsom keeps claiming the state has excess PPE now, so that's not the issue. The issue is that the goalposts 100% changed, and people weren't on board without the change.
  14. Singing in church may not be important in your opinion, but many would adamantly disagree with you, especially those whose entire service is chanted.
  • Create New...