- Registrado
- 20 de Jun, 2019
>no fun allowed
Designated Whiner Shitting Street - General non DSP-specific discussion and stupid questions goes here
- Iniciador del tema fatniggo
- Fecha de inicio
-
🚨 On-and-off DDoS attacks. (July 25th: On-going connection issues.)
🧅 Tor is stable: https://kiwifarmsaaf4t2h7gc3dfc5ojhmqruw2nit3uejrpiagrxeuxiyxcyd.onion/ -
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
- Registrado
- 17 de Ene, 2017
Literally every other subforum on the website operates this way and has for over 5 years.
- Registrado
- 16 de Sep, 2019
2017 was an incredible season in the DSP universe.
Engagement, rushed to ER complaining then breakup, Machinima, Laveria, the SoK downfall, pa, mystery woman and everything associated, etc.
Nothing currently short of Phil picking up his dull hatchet, holding it to his own throat, and screaming into the camera with tears in his eyes "I'll do it" could compare to that amazing year.
Also lol calm down.
- Registrado
- 23 de Sep, 2017
Bruh.....you do realize that we are days away from entering the hardcore drama season right??? For the past, at least 2 years, from his thanksgiving day pity party stream till the end of tax season in April is when he pulls out all the stops to victimize himself and reveal stupid shit that he's kept secret for financial reasons.
Things will get interesting. All good things to those who wait.
PS: If you have nothing better to do then lurk around waiting for, "I INADVERTENTLY COMMITTED TAX FRAUD" levels of drama from Phil, you might want to consider picking up an extra hobby.
- Registrado
- 13 de Mar, 2016
A bunch of faggots are acting like faggots? Good gracious. I guess it’s up to me to come out of retirement and set things right.
Anyway, after watching several hot videos, I believe DSP has a foot fetish. He obviously prefers John Rambo’s feet above all others, but after watching the “they’re here?” clip and how he meekly nods his head and glances at the ground, perhaps Kat has feet that he enjoys as well. Do you think he has learned of the joys of heels, pantyhose, and female attire related or does he still yearn for the days of bunking with dudes in sweaty hotel rooms and the bounty of socked and bare feet stomping around?
der rademacher
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 23 de Sep, 2017
- Registrado
- 17 de Ene, 2017
no one:
everyone: *becomes mad*
also "your mom"
everyone: *becomes mad*
also "your mom"
- Registrado
- 19 de Ene, 2018
Someone told him he could get Shenmue 3 for $35 instead of $60 in-store. So he went there and bought 2 or 3 other games too (because he's broke, you see). That's it.
Shambler
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 22 de Feb, 2019
phil has more money than he lets on? say it aint so!
Sparkletor
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 15 de Dic, 2017
I agree. 2017 Mystery Woman "Kimberlie Brink" was top notch detective work.
- Registrado
- 7 de Ene, 2016
Imagine thinking the DSP thread was ever good.
(Note: The Mystery Woman story arc was good because of the sheer absurdity of it all and the crazy revelations, but the thread was awful then as it is now.)
(Note: The Mystery Woman story arc was good because of the sheer absurdity of it all and the crazy revelations, but the thread was awful then as it is now.)
- Registrado
- 13 de Mar, 2016
Because it’s illegal. All they can give is name and dates of employment, if they give anything else they are in violation of federal law. Of course, low level HR positions are often staffed with idiots so you’re going to have anecdotal accounts of HR giving information they shouldn’t give. Shit, I’ll even give you my script from when I verified employment:
“Hello, I’m Commander Keen with the Vorticon Explusionary Expeditionary Force calling to verify employment. Is there a supervisor or HR support member I could speak with regarding this?” When you get transferred, it’s the same prompt except you add in Booger McFartsalot because Booger said he worked at Burger King for four years and you want to know if he’s a dirty fucking liar.
They’ll sometimes ask for some more information, like job title, but they’ll often just fire up ye olde HRIS and go to town. Now what you do after this is ask seemingly innocent questions like “Is employee eligible for rehire?” That tricks up people sometimes, but most often they’ll just say all they can give is dates of employment. If they say no, employee is not eligible for rehire then you ask “Is non-eligibility due to discipline or performance?” If they say discipline then the employee in question was a fuck up and probably did do something like snort a couple of lines off the toilet seat.
Every time you’ve applied for a loan, job, volunteer effort, you name it some poor jackass had to do the same thing I just wrote out to every place you listed in your work history.
- Registrado
- 17 de Ene, 2017
This is a meme that is just as incorrect as "federal law requires breaks". Federal law places no restrictions on what employers can say about you. Most states place no restrictions. The states that place restrictions all allow you to waive those restrictions by written agreement- guess what's in every single job application in those states? A waiver of those restrictions.
- Registrado
- 13 de Mar, 2016
Irrelevant. If you applied for a job and your old job talks shit about you during verification and it gets back your way, that’s an automatic settlement. When people say “but it’s in the contract!” they have no idea what the term “consideration” means. If the contract is illegal under federal law, state law is moot in this instance because fed always trumps state, then the contract is not enforceable. That thing you signed isn’t even worth using to wipe your ass.
Had you said there’s no way for you to find out so these laws are unenforceable, I’d agree. However, the law is on the books and employees are routinely disciplined for violating this law. This is not a privacy law, which do not really exist in the United States outside of FERPA and HIPAA, it is a labor law.
Name. Dates of employment. That’s all you can give.
- Registrado
- 17 de Ene, 2017
... I literally said there's no such federal law and that the states that have laws like that allow employers to require you to waive it as a condition of employment... and your response was that those waivers are irrelevant because they violate the federal laws I just said don't exist. I just searched for "what can employers say about you" and every result confirms this.
Here's a discussion on state laws: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/employee-rights-book/chapter9-6.html
- Registrado
- 13 de Mar, 2016
Ok, so when your old employer tells your new employer to not hire you because you left work early too many times and then your new employer tells you they’re not going to hire you for that reason and that’s what your old job told them and you come back with a doctor’s note saying the reason you left early is due to a disability that requires a reasonable accommodation under the American’s with Disabilities Act your new employer is going to write you a fucking check because they just engaged in discriminatory hiring practices and refusal to make reasonable accommodations for disabled applicants and employees.
Pro tip: almost every accommodation you can think of is reasonable. Have fun thinking up unreasonable situations, but you’ll know they’re wacky as hell when you type them out.
I told you there are no federal privacy laws, so I am unsure why you’re harping on that. There are no privacy laws in the United States worth mentioning except FERPA and HIPAA. What will happen is your new employer is gonna back out of your job offer for one reason or another and you’re gonna waltz on down to Goldberg, Shylock, and Walton and say the reason all that happened is because you’re a protected class of some sort and your new employer is gonna write you a check and engage in some corrective action after you get a right to sue letter from the EEOC.
Any state waiver is meaningless in the eyes of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, HIPAA, and FERPA (except in the instances of academic dishonesty and a few other situations I forget). Again, like I said earlier, I would agree with you had you said you’d never find out about it so the whole conversation is moot. However, these federal laws, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, are not moot. So these wavers mean absolutely dick. There’s a thing called “consideration” when dealing with contracts. If the contract is illegal, it cannot be enforced. If you are terminated illegally and your old employer tells your new employer the reason they fired you but not the trouble they go into for doing it, that waiver is not going to protect anyone.
I guess it’s my fault for not explicitly stating every single federal law that ever was and will ever be.
- Registrado
- 17 de Ene, 2017
Neither party discriminated on the basis of you having a disability, because neither party knew your absences were medical in nature. Neither party refused to make a reasonable accommodation that would enable you to perform your duties because you didn't ask either party to make an accommodation.
- If you apply for a job as a pizza delivery driver but request the employer accommodate your inability to sit for more than 5 minutes at a time due to a back injury by allowing you to pull over and stand or lay down every 5 minutes the employer is justified in refusing to hire you as a pizza delivery driver.
- If you apply for a job as a cashier but request the employer accommodate your inability to make change because of your intellectual impairment by having an assistant they do not employ count change for you the employer is justified in refusing to hire you as a cashier.
- If you apply for a job as an on-call paramedic but request the employer accommodate your inability to get out of bed intermittently due to depression by allowing you to miss calls with no notice the employer is justified in refusing to hire you as a on-call paramedic.
- If you go to an attorney and claim you were discriminated the attorney is likely to charge you $50-100 to explain for 15 minutes how hard it is to prove discrimination claims without a documented pattern of behavior — something that is hard to show when your only interaction with the employer is a job application or interview — and then offer to represent you on unemployment for $700 if you unwillingly left your previous job within the past 18 months.
- There's not a whole lot of reason to hire an attorney before you get a right-to-sue letter. The complaint process is fairly straightforward and designed to allow unrepresented victims to participate effectively.
- A right-to-sue letter from the EEOC is issued in every scenario where the EEOC doesn't sue on your behalf — even if the Commission finds no cause to believe discrimination occurred — and is nothing more than a certification that you attempted to handle it out of court as required without resolution. Most employment disputes require plaintiffs to exhaust all non-judicial remedies before filing suit and failure to do so is a point of attack for early dismissal. The letter has no special power.
Consideration occurred if you got hired. The employer allowed you to work in his business and you allowed the employer to disclose information about you to reference requesters. If you didn't get hired the employer doesn't receive anything of value; you were never their employee and the information have about you is not an employee record subject to restrictions.
There is nothing illegal about your employer telling a reference requester that you're disabled even if they fired you for being disabled unless state law protects that information and a waiver isn't in place. There's also nothing illegal about them unwisely admitting they fired you for being disabled. The reference requester is not going to send you a settlement check just because you accuse them of listening to your employer say you have a disability or by listening to your employer admit to a violation of the law.
- Registrado
- 13 de Mar, 2016
State law is irrelevant in the eyes of federal law. HIPAA prohibits the sharing of medical information such as disability status. What you listed in your last paragraph is subject to a fine up to one million fucking dollars not counting the civil action which has a limit of one point five million dollars.
Why do you keep harping about state law? Do you think state law ever trumps federal law? Why do you think consideration just occurs because both parties got something out of it? A contract has no consideration if it is illegal, I can pay you 50 bucks to kill my neighbor who I hate. You got 50 bucks, I got rid of my neighbor, you think consideration is present in that contract? Jesus Christ, if a contract violates the law consideration can not exist.
Why on earth do you think it’s perfectly fine for an employer to share your medical information? You can go to jail for doing that if it is determined you acted with malicious intent. People have gone to federal prison for it.
Be honest. That was you who just dropped ten bucks on Phil in my name, wasn’t it?
- Registrado
- 12 de Mar, 2019
Guys, this is pointless to talk about. Regardless to what the laws are, most employers will only confirm employment. They rarely, if ever, give a reason why.
Remember Dave's wife from Cracker Barrel and how it became a boomer meme? It took someone lying convincingly that they were from a store to a secretary from corporate before they were able to learn why she was fired.
Besides, companies hire places now that just run background checks for other companies, then send a report back.
So honestly, both of y'all are correct. Once 3 legally and one culturally.
Love you both
