Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site tekig4.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!tektronix!tekig5!tekig4!scottp
From: scottp@tekig4.UUCP (Scott Phillips)
Newsgroups: net.legal,net.jobs
Subject: Re: Is this company breaking the law with it's employees?
Message-ID: <483@tekig4.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 29-Jan-86 17:56:16 EST
Article-I.D.: tekig4.483
Posted: Wed Jan 29 17:56:16 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Feb-86 04:47:15 EST
References: <108@graffiti.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Lines: 48
Xref: watmath net.legal:2840 net.jobs:1808

> This message has been posted to both net.legal and net.jobs.
> Sorry about that, but I think it belongs in both places.
> 


		<many lines of explanation of the situation>
			<deleted for the faint of heart>


> 
> 	Aren't there laws stating that an employer can't force
> 	an employee to work for more than forty hours a week without
> 	some form of mandatory overtime pay?  Especially under
> 	such duress?
> 
> 	Is it legal to withhold the job's final destination until
> 	after you have to accept a financial obligation like this
> 	one?  By the way, the company delayed telling people their
> 	final destinations by several weeks.  This of course messed
> 	up the ability to make a decision about staying or leaving.
> 
> 	Isn't it illegal to lie to everyone you interview no matter
> 	what is on the employment contract?  I can understand a
> 	mistake by an interviewer, but every person in my friend's
> 	class was told one year.  Every person interviewed in different
> 	parts of the country, with different interviewers.  Each
> 	person was told one year.  Every contract reads two years
> 	in the fine print.
> 

		<some very qualifiable commentary>




*** REPLACE THIS MESS WITH YOUR LINEAGE ***


Have you ever heard of the United States Army?  40 hours is hardly what
they expect (although one might argue that the army is 0 hours of work
and all the other hours of putting up with ********).  The army does not
require your knowledge to send you somewhere.  Also, if you have ever heard
an army recruiter (no, not all recruiters, just the ones I was dumb enough
to listen to), you know that verbal lies dont bother the conscience of them
as long as they get their quota.  And they are telling them to primarily
young (age 17-19) folks (cant get much less experienced than that).  It's
not that I'm against the army, I just enjoy drawing the analogy.  What's worse
is that you (and I) are paying for them to do this.  Oh well.......