|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jul 6, 2015 10:36:45 GMT
I'm not a fan of the term "low skilled jobs" because all jobs require skills. All jobs require specialized training but the person has to bring many skills to any job that they're employed at. What we do have are tens of millions of low paying jobs that, regardless of skills, people are forced to accept because they cannot live without a job. A person's skills have no meaning when the only job they can obtain is a low paying job.
Yes, a high income investor that declares personal bankruptcy may, but not always, have to pay higher interests rates to borrow money in the future but they almost always pay a lower interest rate than a low income worker that has never declared bankruptcy.
In point of fact I do believe that the courts should address the inherent responsibilities of both the worker and the employer in the "employment contract" as a "general condition" of the contract as established below.
Terms and conditions that set the rights and obligations of the contracting parties, when a contract is awarded or entered into. These include 'general conditions' which are common to all types of contracts, as well as 'special conditions' which are peculiar to a specific contract (such as, contract change conditions, payment conditions, price variation clauses, penalties).
Read more: www.businessdictionary.com/definition/conditions-of-contract.html#ixzz3epRiSn9E
Whereas you are certainly free to disagree with the federal courts (I sometimes disagree with their rulings), it may tell you something that they have never even thought to rule on this matter. Perhaps that is because it is quite unusual for any American to think of mere employment as a type of "contract law." And it is not only "low income worker" who have declared bankruptcy. Not by a long shot. More than one-third of one's FICO score is determined by one's credit history (including bankruptcy): www.myfico.com/crediteducation/whatsinyourscore.aspx
WOW - I've never heard of anyone that didn't understand that employment was a matter of contract. During my entire working career I always worked under an employment contract and in the vast majority of cases it was a written contract with the employer. Lockheed, Northrop, Boeing, GE, and other major corporations I've worked for all have written employment contracts.
I have a serious problem with our credit reporting systems and FICO scores. For years I went without any debt because I had more than enough income to pay cash for virtually everything I needed. When it came time to purchase a house many years ago I suffered because I'd always paid cash instead of purchasing on credit. When a person is penalized for not going into debt there is a serious problem with the system.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jul 16, 2015 6:06:55 GMT
Whereas you are certainly free to disagree with the federal courts (I sometimes disagree with their rulings), it may tell you something that they have never even thought to rule on this matter. Perhaps that is because it is quite unusual for any American to think of mere employment as a type of "contract law." And it is not only "low income worker" who have declared bankruptcy. Not by a long shot. More than one-third of one's FICO score is determined by one's credit history (including bankruptcy): www.myfico.com/crediteducation/whatsinyourscore.aspx
WOW - I've never heard of anyone that didn't understand that employment was a matter of contract. During my entire working career I always worked under an employment contract and in the vast majority of cases it was a written contract with the employer. Lockheed, Northrop, Boeing, GE, and other major corporations I've worked for all have written employment contracts.
I have a serious problem with our credit reporting systems and FICO scores. For years I went without any debt because I had more than enough income to pay cash for virtually everything I needed. When it came time to purchase a house many years ago I suffered because I'd always paid cash instead of purchasing on credit. When a person is penalized for not going into debt there is a serious problem with the system.
Only 15 percent of your FICO score is determined by length of credit history. The other 85 percent is not. Like you, I generally eschew credit--I much prefer to pay cash--but the exception to that is what some people refer to as "short-term credit." More specifically, I use my Discover Card quite a lot--for gasoline purchases; groceries; fast food; and just about anything else--but I pay it off in full each month, by automatic debit. I have been retired for over 10 years now; but I never did have an employment contract. Not ever. With any company. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jul 19, 2015 10:34:48 GMT
WOW - I've never heard of anyone that didn't understand that employment was a matter of contract. During my entire working career I always worked under an employment contract and in the vast majority of cases it was a written contract with the employer. Lockheed, Northrop, Boeing, GE, and other major corporations I've worked for all have written employment contracts.
I have a serious problem with our credit reporting systems and FICO scores. For years I went without any debt because I had more than enough income to pay cash for virtually everything I needed. When it came time to purchase a house many years ago I suffered because I'd always paid cash instead of purchasing on credit. When a person is penalized for not going into debt there is a serious problem with the system.
Only 15 percent of your FICO score is determined by length of credit history. The other 85 percent is not. Like you, I generally eschew credit--I much prefer to pay cash--but the exception to that is what some people refer to as "short-term credit." More specifically, I use my Discover Card quite a lot--for gasoline purchases; groceries; fast food; and just about anything else--but I pay it off in full each month, by automatic debit. I have been retired for over 10 years now; but I never did have an employment contract. Not ever. With any company.
An interesting story on credit that has just unfolded. My father passed away in January and my mother contacted Chevron about changing the name on their credit card from my dad's name to her name. They've had this gasoline credit card since 1960 and my mother has made every payment for (all of) the bills. Never once has a payment been late. Because she had no credit in her name and they paid "cash" for almost everything (e.g. their house was built with cash and all of their new automobiles were paid for with cash) Chevron refused to change the name on the credit card and canceled it. My parents had been loyal customers and she'd paid the bill on time for 45 years and they canceled the card because of the credit report. That's BS and I'm going to be contacting Chevron to file a complaint. I'm also going to boycott all Chevron (and Texico) gas stations and might create an online petition to get others to contact Chevron and boycott their gas stations.
I find it hard to believe that you never agreed to show up on time at a place of employment, work a specified number of hours, that the employer never promised to pay you for your time or to provide any benefits such as vacation time and sick leave, or perhaps co-fund a retirement account or provide health insurance. If any agreement existed between you and your employer then that "agreement" is called a "contract" under the law. It might have been a verbal contract as opposed to a written contract but it was a contract nonetheless.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jul 20, 2015 1:23:51 GMT
Only 15 percent of your FICO score is determined by length of credit history. The other 85 percent is not. Like you, I generally eschew credit--I much prefer to pay cash--but the exception to that is what some people refer to as "short-term credit." More specifically, I use my Discover Card quite a lot--for gasoline purchases; groceries; fast food; and just about anything else--but I pay it off in full each month, by automatic debit. I have been retired for over 10 years now; but I never did have an employment contract. Not ever. With any company.
An interesting story on credit that has just unfolded. My father passed away in January and my mother contacted Chevron about changing the name on their credit card from my dad's name to her name. They've had this gasoline credit card since 1960 and my mother has made every payment for (all of) the bills. Never once has a payment been late. Because she had no credit in her name and they paid "cash" for almost everything (e.g. their house was built with cash and all of their new automobiles were paid for with cash) Chevron refused to change the name on the credit card and canceled it. My parents had been loyal customers and she'd paid the bill on time for 45 years and they canceled the card because of the credit report. That's BS and I'm going to be contacting Chevron to file a complaint. I'm also going to boycott all Chevron (and Texico) gas stations and might create an online petition to get others to contact Chevron and boycott their gas stations.
I find it hard to believe that you never agreed to show up on time at a place of employment, work a specified number of hours, that the employer never promised to pay you for your time or to provide any benefits such as vacation time and sick leave, or perhaps co-fund a retirement account or provide health insurance. If any agreement existed between you and your employer then that "agreement" is called a "contract" under the law. It might have been a verbal contract as opposed to a written contract but it was a contract nonetheless.
I am certainly sorry to learn of the troubles regarding your mother's Chevron card. Would it be possible for her, instead, to use a Visa, MasterCard, or Discover Card? I punched a time clock at each of my places of employment; and I did, indeed, receive a certain amount of vacation days and personal days. And I had a 401(k) through each employer. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jul 20, 2015 13:37:50 GMT
An interesting story on credit that has just unfolded. My father passed away in January and my mother contacted Chevron about changing the name on their credit card from my dad's name to her name. They've had this gasoline credit card since 1960 and my mother has made every payment for (all of) the bills. Never once has a payment been late. Because she had no credit in her name and they paid "cash" for almost everything (e.g. their house was built with cash and all of their new automobiles were paid for with cash) Chevron refused to change the name on the credit card and canceled it. My parents had been loyal customers and she'd paid the bill on time for 45 years and they canceled the card because of the credit report. That's BS and I'm going to be contacting Chevron to file a complaint. I'm also going to boycott all Chevron (and Texico) gas stations and might create an online petition to get others to contact Chevron and boycott their gas stations.
I find it hard to believe that you never agreed to show up on time at a place of employment, work a specified number of hours, that the employer never promised to pay you for your time or to provide any benefits such as vacation time and sick leave, or perhaps co-fund a retirement account or provide health insurance. If any agreement existed between you and your employer then that "agreement" is called a "contract" under the law. It might have been a verbal contract as opposed to a written contract but it was a contract nonetheless.
I am certainly sorry to learn of the troubles regarding your mother's Chevron card. Would it be possible for her, instead, to use a Visa, MasterCard, or Discover Card? I punched a time clock at each of my places of employment; and I did, indeed, receive a certain amount of vacation days and personal days. And I had a 401(k) through each employer.
Yes, she probably does have another credit card but that isn't the point. She (not my father that never paid a single bill for over 73 years) paid every Chrevon credit card bill within days of receiving it. I actually believe that what Chevron-Texico has done is illegal under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act as it results in gender discrimintation against a married woman at the death of her husband but I'm going to have to consult with our attorney on that issue.
Then you had an employment contract with your employer. If the contract didn't exist then the employer was under no legal obligation to pay you for working. The employment contract created the legal obligation for compensation. Apparently, in your case, it was a verbal contract assuming there were no documents where the employer stated they would pay you a specific amount for the hours worked (e.g. a written job offer).
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jul 23, 2015 4:55:33 GMT
I am certainly sorry to learn of the troubles regarding your mother's Chevron card. Would it be possible for her, instead, to use a Visa, MasterCard, or Discover Card? I punched a time clock at each of my places of employment; and I did, indeed, receive a certain amount of vacation days and personal days. And I had a 401(k) through each employer.
Yes, she probably does have another credit card but that isn't the point. She (not my father that never paid a single bill for over 73 years) paid every Chrevon credit card bill within days of receiving it. I actually believe that what Chevron-Texico has done is illegal under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act as it results in gender discrimintation against a married woman at the death of her husband but I'm going to have to consult with our attorney on that issue.
Then you had an employment contract with your employer. If the contract didn't exist then the employer was under no legal obligation to pay you for working. The employment contract created the legal obligation for compensation. Apparently, in your case, it was a verbal contract assuming there were no documents where the employer stated they would pay you a specific amount for the hours worked (e.g. a written job offer).
I suppose you could call it a sort of "verbal contract." But, to the best of my knowledge, no court has ever considered it an example of contractual law. (Of course, minimum-wage laws do apply here.)
Again, I feel badly about the way that your mother was treated by the credit-card company in question. My guess, however, is that some low-level functionary (who has no idea as to who paid the bills) made that decision. Perhaps it could be appealed to some higher level--especially if the company actually wants your mother's business.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jul 23, 2015 10:51:54 GMT
Yes, she probably does have another credit card but that isn't the point. She (not my father that never paid a single bill for over 73 years) paid every Chrevon credit card bill within days of receiving it. I actually believe that what Chevron-Texico has done is illegal under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act as it results in gender discrimintation against a married woman at the death of her husband but I'm going to have to consult with our attorney on that issue.
Then you had an employment contract with your employer. If the contract didn't exist then the employer was under no legal obligation to pay you for working. The employment contract created the legal obligation for compensation. Apparently, in your case, it was a verbal contract assuming there were no documents where the employer stated they would pay you a specific amount for the hours worked (e.g. a written job offer).
I suppose you could call it a sort of "verbal contract." But, to the best of my knowledge, no court has ever considered it an example of contractual law. (Of course, minimum-wage laws do apply here.)
Again, I feel badly about the way that your mother was treated by the credit-card company in question. My guess, however, is that some low-level functionary (who has no idea as to who paid the bills) made that decision. Perhaps it could be appealed to some higher level--especially if the company actually wants your mother's business.
The government certainly does consider employment a matter of contract and the conditions of the contract, even when verbal, are enforced by the courts if necessary. My wife, many years ago, faced a situation where her employer refused to pay her and the employer was forced by the government to pay her for hours worked at the rate established under a verbal employment contract.
I'm contacting the CEO of Chevron-Texaco over the denial/revocation of the credit card to my mother and I'm also going to discuss it with the family attorney as I believe they've violated federal law.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jul 27, 2015 1:11:26 GMT
I suppose you could call it a sort of "verbal contract." But, to the best of my knowledge, no court has ever considered it an example of contractual law. (Of course, minimum-wage laws do apply here.)
Again, I feel badly about the way that your mother was treated by the credit-card company in question. My guess, however, is that some low-level functionary (who has no idea as to who paid the bills) made that decision. Perhaps it could be appealed to some higher level--especially if the company actually wants your mother's business.
The government certainly does consider employment a matter of contract and the conditions of the contract, even when verbal, are enforced by the courts if necessary. My wife, many years ago, faced a situation where her employer refused to pay her and the employer was forced by the government to pay her for hours worked at the rate established under a verbal employment contract.
I'm contacting the CEO of Chevron-Texaco over the denial/revocation of the credit card to my mother and I'm also going to discuss it with the family attorney as I believe they've violated federal law.
I don't doubt that the conditions of employment are enforced by the courts (including the hours to be worked; the rate of pay; and any fringe benefits said to be provided). But that is a bit different than the courts' considering it a matter of contractual law.
I really do not know if Chevron/Texaco has violated federal law, or not. But I do certainly hope that this is all straightened out, to your mother's satisfaction. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jul 27, 2015 10:27:29 GMT
The government certainly does consider employment a matter of contract and the conditions of the contract, even when verbal, are enforced by the courts if necessary. My wife, many years ago, faced a situation where her employer refused to pay her and the employer was forced by the government to pay her for hours worked at the rate established under a verbal employment contract.
I'm contacting the CEO of Chevron-Texaco over the denial/revocation of the credit card to my mother and I'm also going to discuss it with the family attorney as I believe they've violated federal law.
I don't doubt that the conditions of employment are enforced by the courts (including the hours to be worked; the rate of pay; and any fringe benefits said to be provided). But that is a bit different than the courts' considering it a matter of contractual law.
I really do not know if Chevron/Texaco has violated federal law, or not. But I do certainly hope that this is all straightened out, to your mother's satisfaction.
Well we have statutory law, we have common law, and we have contract law and the purpose of the courts is to enforce the law. While statutory law does effect some general provisions of employment (e.g. minimum wage and employee safety) and the common law may also apply to some general provisions of employment (e.g. the employer can't insist the employee violate criminal law) neither address the specifics of employment established by the employer and employee. So if it's not statutory law, common law, or contract law then what type of law do the courts enforce related to the specific conditions of employment?
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Aug 12, 2015 21:35:39 GMT
I am guessing that, if any company refuses to pay at the rate promised, or give the benefits promised, then this would be a violation of statutory law.
But I would not pretend to be an attorney...
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 13, 2015 14:03:42 GMT
I am guessing that, if any company refuses to pay at the rate promised, or give the benefits promised, then this would be a violation of statutory law. t But I would not pretend to be an attorney...
It would be a violation of contract law that is both statutory as well as common law (unwritten law established by precendent of the courts) in the United States. Contract law also establishes that a contract is based not just on the explicit conditions of the contract but also upon the implied conditions of contract. Implied conditions are those unwritten conditions that ensure the contract is fair to both parties.
An example I've used is the repair contract between the customer and the repair shop. These contracts typically include an estimated cost of repairs without specifying how accurate the estimate is. It is "assumed" that the estimate is relatively close to the actual repair charges. If the repair shop owner tried to collect double the estimate when the repair were complete they would be violating an "implied condition" of the contract.
We also have cases where the government, under statutory law, addresses problems with contracts such as the maximum interest rate on a loan. A person in desperate need of money might agree to a much higher interest rate (and do that with loan sharks) while the government determined that such interest rates reflected "usury" by the lender violating the rights of the borrower.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Aug 19, 2015 23:58:52 GMT
I am guessing that, if any company refuses to pay at the rate promised, or give the benefits promised, then this would be a violation of statutory law. t But I would not pretend to be an attorney...
It would be a violation of contract law that is both statutory as well as common law (unwritten law established by precendent of the courts) in the United States. Contract law also establishes that a contract is based not just on the explicit conditions of the contract but also upon the implied conditions of contract. Implied conditions are those unwritten conditions that ensure the contract is fair to both parties.
An example I've used is the repair contract between the customer and the repair shop. These contracts typically include an estimated cost of repairs without specifying how accurate the estimate is. It is "assumed" that the estimate is relatively close to the actual repair charges. If the repair shop owner tried to collect double the estimate when the repair were complete they would be violating an "implied condition" of the contract.
We also have cases where the government, under statutory law, addresses problems with contracts such as the maximum interest rate on a loan. A person in desperate need of money might agree to a much higher interest rate (and do that with loan sharks) while the government determined that such interest rates reflected "usury" by the lender violating the rights of the borrower.
In all probability, the "loan sharks" to which you refer are operating illegally. In fact, they may even be associated with the Mafia; and may break the borrower's legs (or worse) if he (or she) does not pay up--promptly. I am not a huge fan of the "usury" laws, to which you refer. If a person wants quick money so deeply that he (or she) is willing to pay an enormous interest rate in order to get it--and with good credit, this would surely not be necessary, anyway; one's local bank or credit union could supply the loan--then I do not think it is any of the federal government's proper business. I do not believe that the courts have ever recognized, as a matter of "contract law," an employer's obligation to pay a specific rate, or provide specific benefits. It would, however, be quite illegal to violate the provisions promised. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 27, 2015 13:52:56 GMT
In all probability, the "loan sharks" to which you refer are operating illegally. In fact, they may even be associated with the Mafia; and may break the borrower's legs (or worse) if he (or she) does not pay up--promptly. I am not a huge fan of the "usury" laws, to which you refer. If a person wants quick money so deeply that he (or she) is willing to pay an enormous interest rate in order to get it--and with good credit, this would surely not be necessary, anyway; one's local bank or credit union could supply the loan--then I do not think it is any of the federal government's proper business. I do not believe that the courts have ever recognized, as a matter of "contract law," an employer's obligation to pay a specific rate, or provide specific benefits. It would, however, be quite illegal to violate the provisions promised.
The US Supreme Court has ruled that federal welfare assistance and the federal minimum wage are both Constitutional and based upon a compelling interest of government.
There is a compelling argument to increase the minimum wage to the point that government welfare assistance for working Americans becomes unnecessary eliminating both the taxation and spending by the federal government to provide welfare assistance to working Americans.
|
|
|
|
Post by maria263898 on Mar 15, 2021 11:04:41 GMT
|
|
