5 ms·

As VLM notes elswhere in this thread, being poor also means you're usually "judgment proof" (i.e. too poor to be worth suing).

by eggoa 12y ago

notacoward 12y ago
The company might not recover costs by suing, but that won't necessarily stop them from doing it to make an example of someone.
DanBC 12y ago
> there are other cases where low-paid or entry-level workers have had an employer try to restrict their employability elsewhere. The Times article tells of a camp counselor and a hair stylist who faced such restrictions. Being poor does not seem to have helped those people.
x0x0 12y ago
But it's often the next employer that is intimidated into not hiring you. So the poor person gets fucked.
- VLM 12y ago
  Most employers don't waste time on references given the legal liabilities, references are only required as a tradition, to prove you know how to play the game, so I think they're safe... with the sole exception of the camp counselor. Given contact with kids, I'd like to at least imagine they would try to background check. Even then they probably don't and rely on 3rd party professionals. You have to be realistic about these kind of things. If, under better economic conditions, adults would never work these jobs and it would all be "teens first job" then they're not going to be geared up to check references or prior employers and they're not going to care if you leave your previous employer section blank. You don't need a stellar resume to meet the minimum requirements to flip burgers and if you show up with a stellar resume it proves you don't know how to play the game and they will politely tell you you're overqualified, until you learn to play the game.
  - x0x0 12y ago
    Your response is amazing. Step 1 -- Let's ignore reality (low end jobs are not primarily teens anymore [1]); the actual quoted experience in the article Step 2 -- now firmly in our fantasy land, this nasty action of employers definitely isn't a problem! Step 3 -- therefore, nasty action isn't a problem! Step 4 -- The aristocrats. [1] http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/08/08/2433601/fast-food-workers-young/ http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/08/08/2433601/fast-foo...
    - notacoward 12y ago
      Looks like a pretty accurate paraphrase, except that you left out the "well meaning advice" for people very unlike the GP to take risks the GP never would so that the system can right itself. That's a real gem of anti-empathy right there.
danielweber 12y ago
It's not that the old employer would sue you for damages, because they would have to demonstrate damages. What they can do is get an injunction to stop you, and they could also send nastygrams to your new employer to get them to can you.

As VLM notes elswhere in this thread, being poor also means you're usually "judgment proof" (i.e. too poor to be worth suing).

by eggoa 12y ago

As VLM notes elswhere in this thread, being poor also means you're usually "judgment proof" (i.e. too poor to be worth suing).

notacoward 12y ago

The company might not recover costs by suing, but that won't necessarily stop them from doing it to make an example of someone.

DanBC 12y ago

> there are other cases where low-paid or entry-level workers have had an employer try to restrict their employability elsewhere. The Times article tells of a camp counselor and a hair stylist who faced such restrictions. Being poor does not seem to have helped those people.

x0x0 12y ago

But it's often the next employer that is intimidated into not hiring you. So the poor person gets fucked.

VLM 12y ago
Most employers don't waste time on references given the legal liabilities, references are only required as a tradition, to prove you know how to play the game, so I think they're safe... with the sole exception of the camp counselor. Given contact with kids, I'd like to at least imagine they would try to background check. Even then they probably don't and rely on 3rd party professionals. You have to be realistic about these kind of things. If, under better economic conditions, adults would never work these jobs and it would all be "teens first job" then they're not going to be geared up to check references or prior employers and they're not going to care if you leave your previous employer section blank. You don't need a stellar resume to meet the minimum requirements to flip burgers and if you show up with a stellar resume it proves you don't know how to play the game and they will politely tell you you're overqualified, until you learn to play the game.
- x0x0 12y ago
  Your response is amazing. Step 1 -- Let's ignore reality (low end jobs are not primarily teens anymore [1]); the actual quoted experience in the article Step 2 -- now firmly in our fantasy land, this nasty action of employers definitely isn't a problem! Step 3 -- therefore, nasty action isn't a problem! Step 4 -- The aristocrats. [1] http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/08/08/2433601/fast-food-workers-young/ http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/08/08/2433601/fast-foo...
  - notacoward 12y ago
    Looks like a pretty accurate paraphrase, except that you left out the "well meaning advice" for people very unlike the GP to take risks the GP never would so that the system can right itself. That's a real gem of anti-empathy right there.

danielweber 12y ago

It's not that the old employer would sue you for damages, because they would have to demonstrate damages. What they can do is get an injunction to stop you, and they could also send nastygrams to your new employer to get them to can you.