ShadowRam

joined 2 years ago
[–] ShadowRam@fedia.io 3 points 5 months ago (6 children)

I think you’re still kind of screwed if they want you in the office and you’re officially remote.

Depends on what you mean by 'screwed'. If they hired you with certain expectations, like in writing job is 'remote', then you can refuse.

If they fire you as a result, yes, you are 'screwed' in the case of you've lost your job,

But you then sue for wrongful dismissal, in which case you have some recourse.

But if you live in a country/state that doesn't allow you to do that, and offers no employee protections,

You were screwed from the beginning by accepting work in such a place to begin with.

[–] ShadowRam@fedia.io 20 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Money saving measure?

Every stall is a unisex stall.

Problem solved.

[–] ShadowRam@fedia.io 18 points 5 months ago (24 children)

If you accepted a remote job, you should have it in writing that the job is 'remote' work.

If your job wasn't remote initially, but assumed it would be remote going forward, you should have demanded that the job has changed to 'remote' in writing.

If your job wasn't initially remote, was temporarily made remote, and they are now changing back. Be prepared to walk.

[–] ShadowRam@fedia.io 43 points 5 months ago (18 children)

Context? Who r these people?

[–] ShadowRam@fedia.io 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

WTF? So your country bitches out illegal immigrants, and yet gives them an official way for them to work in your country via ITINs?

Immigrants who do not have a valid visa or other proof of legal status are not eligible for an SSN.

So if you do not have a valid work visa or proof of legal status, why would you be allowed to work and why would ITIN's exist at all?

[–] ShadowRam@fedia.io 1 points 5 months ago

Yeah, but those consequences are a direct result of poor infrastructure to facilitate the technology. Not the technology itself.

The consequences are more about these light motorized vehicles interacting with either cars/trucks meant to go faster and be larger, or interacting with pedestrians or non-motorized devices.

If they had their own dedicated pavement like the other two, most(not all) of those 'consequences' disappear.

[–] ShadowRam@fedia.io 1 points 5 months ago

The problem is infrastructure.

We have pavement for trucks/cars at >30km/h... We have pavement for pedestrians <5km/h

What we lack is the dedicated pavement for the stuff in between.

Regulating these light-motorized devices to be banned on the other two has been the real issue of acceptance and adoption of the tech.

[–] ShadowRam@fedia.io 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I mean, yeah.. sales taxes make sense,

"Most have income and payroll taxes deducted"

But HOW?! like the employer takes off % money, they need like an SIN # or something to tie it to. So what does the employer do?

I don't see how any undocumented pays 'income' tax... other than the employer either doesn't deduct it, or does and just pockets it.

[–] ShadowRam@fedia.io 0 points 5 months ago (3 children)

But, how does that work?

You remove it from their paychecks under what ###?

When the employer goes to send in that $$$ to the IRS, what does the IRS put it towards? Don't the ask, 'Who is this for?', what does the employer tell them?

[–] ShadowRam@fedia.io 2 points 5 months ago (8 children)

How does an illegal immigrant pay income taxes?

[–] ShadowRam@fedia.io 0 points 5 months ago (6 children)

We want to reduce traffic and oil consumption and can't figure why people buy larger vehicles in North America?

number of fatal traffic accidents

Yeah, the issue isn't the light motorcycles/mopeds/etc....

So dude is right, a whole class of vehicle is being being held back by regulation, and the premise/reason is ridiculous for a society that would like to see less cars on the road.

view more: ‹ prev next ›