OT - HUMOR - Ordering pizza in 2008

[Nova]

I thought some might enjoy this:

Novak Buffalo, NY - USA (Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)

[Larry Jaques]

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:36:29 -0500, the inscrutable Nova spake:

======================================================== TANSTAAFL: There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

Gourmet Web Applications ==========================

[Bob Schmall]

Scary, you bet. And relevant. I signed on to teach a course in astronomy through my town's recreation department. Before they'll approve the course I am required to sign an authorization that allows them to query the Selective Service, ANY law enforcement agency or jail officer, ANY place of business, ANY court, ANY school or other educational institution. And to top it off, they want me to sign away ANY rights I may have to liability or damages of ANY kind. After checking with the ACLU and my state government, I'm about to tell them some very specific place where they can store their form. It may be legal, but it ain't right.

Bob

[Todd Fatheree]

Remember to send a thank you note to your local trial lawyers for that.

todd

[J. Clarke]

I'm a bit puzzled as to why they need "authorization" to do this. Seems to me that all they need is the phone number of each of those entities and they can "query" them to their hearts' content.

Now, among those entities, some will know nothing about you, so why do you care if they query them? And others will know something about you, like whether you're a draft dodger or wanted criminal or are in some other way prohibited by law from participating in Federally funded programs, of which their recreation department is no doubt one, or whether you have in fact taken and passed an astronomy course or exhibited a useful knowledge of astronomy or are in some other way qualified to teach astronomy, which would be a useful thing for them to know before they set you in front of a classroom, or whether the last place you worked you were a reasonable employee or whether you cussed out the boss and pissed off the customers, which again it would be useful for them to know before they put you in front of a room full of people who are expecting some sort of reasonably effective interaction.

Sorry, but it doesn't seem to me that they've asked you for anything unreasonable there. The "ANY" part is probably a lot easier on them than listing all of the specific agencies that they will contact in _your_ case based on your employment history and the like.

Which is standard for government agencies employing part time workers--some kid spills his coffee on you you might shrug it off, but somebody else will sue _them_ for running their coffee machines too hot or creating a hostile work environment or some such instead of just accepting that shit happens or going after the student for malicious clumsiness or whatever.

How many former prospective employers have you told where they could store their form? Seems to me that if you're prone to tell people where to store their forms you're going to be very unhappy dealing with the more obstreperous sort of student.

[Mark & Juanita]

Seems kind of heavy-handed.

... snip

I thought it somewhat ironic that it was the aclu (a bunch of trial lawyers in their own right) hosting the above parody. Although the parody did leave out the dialog, "Oh, I see you are a member of the Church of ..., all of our currently available cooks are athiests and your presence in our restaurant would be offensive to their non-beliefs, therefore, I am going to have to terminate this order and file a grievance against you for harassing our employees for having beliefs they find offensive ..."

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety

Army General Richard Cody

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

[SawDust (Pat)]

Hi Bob.

I'm a municipal employee myself. It's more a legal and liability issue for them. Just one example: Your going to be working around kids. They have to exercise "due diligents" when it comes to performing a background check on you. i.e. They have a responsibility to protect the child attending one of their programs. If they hire you, and fail to exercise diligents, and perform some degree of background check, and you turn out to be a nasty person, they can be held responsible for your actions. Although it may be intrusive, that's just a fact of life now a days, when you work with kids.

Pat

[toolguy]

I've heard of due diligence but what is "diligents"? Is that a gentleman who likes dill pickles??? :>)

[J. Clarke]

Diligents are gentlemen (and ladies) who exercise diligence.

[GregP]

The problems they're addressing were always a problem, it's just that they were neatly swept under a rug somewhere, say another parish. The difference is that these things are now on the table, in plain view.

[SawDust (Pat)]

Not Bad.... :)

[Glenna Rose]

It might very well be that that signing away of any rights regarding liability or damages of any kind also includes anything they might say to someone else/another agency, be it based in fact or fiction. That's a dangerous thing to do as it can ultimately destroy you or your ability to earn a reasonable living. If we are concerned about identity theft and the problems getting it all "fixed," we really need to worry about this type of thing as there is no way of fixing it as you've signed away all of your rights to fix it as it would entail contradicting their careless comments to others which you've said, by signing the document, that you acknowledge you have no right to do.

People that sign this type of document without concern are often the same people who don't bother to read the printed documents they sign when renting cars, obtaining credit cards, buying houses, leasing property, etc., and often get themselves into trouble. The final story is the judge looks at the signed document, usually the full page of fine print on the back which you signed that you read under the larger print on the front, and says you signed it and finds for the other guy.

It's better to be cautious than careless when signing away any rights. There's a big difference between them investigating you as a potential employee and them passing on information to whomever they wish with no liability for what they say.

And, yes, I do base these comments on real life experience. During the course of my working years, I've had first-hand contact with many who have had horror stories to tell.

Glenna

[J. Clarke]

So let's, see, how many times has a government agency lied about someone and then claimed that they had waived their right to sue for libel or slander?

So tell us a "horror story" in which someone signed a typical municipal-government waiver of liability and then the municipal government lied about them to a third party and defended itself using the waiver of liability.

[Larry Jaques]

On 29 Jan 2005 13:24:14 -0800, the inscrutable "toolguy" spake:

Another guy just said "should of" today. Oy vay. Spreak Engrish, troops!

---------------------------------------------------- Thesaurus: Ancient reptile with excellent vocabulary

Dynamic Website Applications ====================================================

[Glenna Rose]

Hmmm. I don't recall saying *anything* in my writing about a municipal government in any of my message.

My point was, in case you missed it since I didn't spell it out, that people should *read* what they sign and try to understand what it *truly* means, and *can* mean.

If a person is uncomfortable signing a legally binding document, then they shouldn't do it. Period. It makes no difference who the originator of that document might be. Of one thing you can be certain, if someone, anyone, wants you to release them of liability, there *is* a reason they have that desire; matters not to you if it is based on anything in your own life. Whether it might adversely affect you at some future date is your decision to make. But on the chance it happens, say ten years down the line, don't bitch about it. This type of thing happens on rental agreements (do *you* always read the rental agreement "hard stuff" printed on the back of the rental form you sign when you rent equipment, a car, etc.?) which can get the poor soul who was in a hurry and accepted the presentor's "It's just the standard agreement" into trouble. There is no such thing as standard.

Again, a person is prudent in being very careful what is signed, especially in releasing liability of a third party which is exactly the end result of some of those documents being discussed. If you are to sign one of those discussed and I go to work for that agency, I can say whatever I please about you and there's not a damn thing you can do about it; the final test is that you signed releasing the agency and all of its employees and agents from liability. Signing is easy, reading is not; we should do more reading for comprehension.

Our local building maintenance code originally included a proposed ordinance to allow "no holes on the property" with no definition of what a hole is. That is one example of folks not paying attention. Yes, it was corrected before it was enacted as was "no lumber stored on the property without a current building permit" and "no vegetation over 18 inches in height." The writers had a specific thing in mind but didn't look at what they actually wrote!

Glenna

[Bob Schmall]

Glenna: Nice.

For me it boils down to: it may be legal, but it ain't right.

Bob

[Dave Balderstone]

"There's millions of them, on all three sides of us..."

djb

[SawDust (Pat)]

Naw, just two finger typing, and the left finger didn't know what the right finger was doing. I'm just glad my middle fingers didn't get involved...

[Todd Fatheree]

And again, you can thank the trial lawyers for making it necessary.

todd

[phildcrowNOSPAM]

Um, I think "heard of" is correct, grammatically. I even talked to my resident grammar expert and she said it was acceptable. Are we wrong? Wait, don't answer that. Is it indeed incorrect to say, "I've heard of that."? (Damn. Now a punctuation conundrum!)

-Phil Crow