Spirited News & Observations II -- NGE/Baxter

[flynnibus]

I'm aware of that...however, non-exempt employees are required by law to be paid for all time worked. So it MUST be rounded up, because employees must be paid for ALL time that they work. If the employer only pays in increments, then they will need to eat the additional amount of time since this is their policy.

Additionally - you may find this letter to the NY State DOL helpful in understanding the situation. Now, we must fully understand labor laws are largely a state topic, but the federal labor laws act as an umbrella that offer some minimum standards. But this letter does speak specifically to how the Federal Wage laws allow the rounding practice.

So again - not that this letter is the exact scenario, but it does speak to both rounding AND communicating to employees about not working overtime
http://www.labor.ny.gov/legal/counsel/pdf/Other/RO-09-0129 - Rounding of Time.pdf

Enjoy

 

[Nemo14]

I think a big part of it is different norms in different professions. This is getting combined with the tendancy if people to incorrectly over attribute behavior to personal factors (a lack of morality) and under attribute to situational factors.

No, it seems to me that it is a simple matter of right is right and wrong is wrong. I little white lie (or half-truth) is still a lie, regardless of "situational factors".

 

[lazyboy97o]

No, it seems to me that it is a simple mater of right is right and wrong is wrong. I little white lie (or half-truth) is still a lie, regardless of "situational factors".

And I have said in this case I agree, but I will not deny that there are cases where naming the parent corporation is normal and expected. But since this is a discussion regarding the Disney presence online and interaction with fans, then it should apply to all involved. Lying on the résumé does not justify lying about what is said because such phrasing makes a stronger impact.

 

[MattM]

No, it seems to me that it is a simple mater of right is right and wrong is wrong. I little white lie (or half-truth) is still a lie, regardless of "situational factors".

What was the lie?

If you worked for Frito-Lay, would you be lying if you told people you worked for Pepsi Co? Is it a half truth?

 

[flynnibus]

"The way she says this makes it sound like she wrote for The New York Times" is a very different and far more accurate statement than "She says she wrote for The New York Times." It does not matter that the latter is what she wants people to think, it is the same sort of mischaracterization. Both parties are using the similarity in name to make the point bigger than what actually occurred. "I wrote for The New York Times Company" has a bigger impact than "I wrote for The Ledger" just as "She claims to have written for The New York Times" has a bigger impact than "She claims to have written for The New York Times Company."

That's the whole argument boiled down. The reason the round and round is happening is the difference between a logical view and an emotional view. The argument has persisted because Lazyboy is expecting that if you are going to string blondie up because of a logical distinction in her claims.. you then yourself act and hold yourself to the same logical standards. But instead we see sloppy language that is conveniently self-serving to further the support for the argument.

Edit to add: This is a recurring pattern. Seen elsewhere as well... lets throw out a bone.. get things spooled up.. and then when the bone is disected and found to be hollow.. the arguement shifts that 'well thats not important'.. and try to advance the topic anyways discrediting the contention of the supporting points as 'splitting hairs'. Facts are often treated as meddling nitpicks because once the blurry version is clarified.. they may not actually support the initial claim. For someone who 'may or may not have been a state debate champion' - you'd think that would be a bit more concerning.

Meanwhile.. others have been on the emotional view of this all along.. and then are trying to argue against the logical distinction.

Emotion will never bow to a logical argument.

 

[PhotoDave219]

#PotCallingTheKettleBlack

You have something to say? Say it.

 

[PhotoDave219]

Emotion will never bow to a logical argument.

Except for logically, a lie is a lie. Its a black and white issue. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[flynnibus]

Except for logically, a lie is a lie. Its a black and white issue. Thanks for proving my point.

And conveniently interchanging terms to self-serve an arugment is also a lie - independent of the higher level point being discussed. That's the distinction lazyboy was making that you and others keep missing because emotionally you are invested in the first, higher level, statement. That emotion blinds you to acknowledging the 'means' to support and promote the significance of that lie were in themselves not legitimate.

Hence.. the emotion (through personal attachment in this case) will conflict with you accepting the logical dissection of the supporting points.

 

[wdwmagic]

I have not had a chance to read through this thread, but the last few pages seem to be just descending into arguing and insult throwing. I think it is time to change subject, or close down this thread and start a fresh.

 

[MattM]

I have not had a chance to read through this thread, but the last few pages seem to be just descending into arguing and insult throwing. I think it is time to change subject, or close down this thread and start a fresh.

I think that's a good idea, to shut it down and start over. There haven't really been any spirited news or observations in about, oh, 185 pages or so anyway.

 

[Nemo14]

I don't think it needs to be shut down, Steve, just agreeing to disagree on this matter should suffice. Thanks.

 

[WDW1974]

I have not had a chance to read through this thread, but the last few pages seem to be just descending into arguing and insult throwing. I think it is time to change subject, or close down this thread and start a fresh.

I'm going to very respectfully ask that you don't, Steve. There are a couple of individuals who have decided to come in here -- knowing that I get eyes and attention -- and try and divert attention, so, yes, the people in Burbank will decide it isn't worth reading etc. Then, those individuals can get all excited that they dinged the Spirit's armor in some small insiginificant and petulant way.

They've made their points known. Now, let them just move on. You know who they are. And I wouldn't doubt that they're PM'ing with each other and tag-teaming just to get their jollies.

It wouldn't be allowed on Eddie Sotto's thread and we both haven't worked for WDI this century. It shouldn't be allowed here. Make a point and move on, not keep arguing and demanding that folks agree with you (what I am accused of) on what is -- in the profession -- a VERY black and white issue.

If anyone doesn't like me or my way of looking at things, then there's a simple answer for them. Go post on one of the hundreds of other threads or start one of their own (I'm sure it will go 192 pages in two months after I closed the original that went over 5000 posts in less than that time).

That's really it. I have no desire to prove my point beyond what I have stated regarding Blondie until there is something new to add.

This is a discussion that got heated up over the Social Media Manager of WDW being less than honest. Can you really think of a more apt forum for this.

I can't hang out in the MAGIC pond this afternoon, but I don't want others coming in and getting a thread I am quite proud of closed down as a reward for their own bad behavior.

Thanks.

 

[Funmeister]

You have something to say? Say it.

No need. You already have said everything that's needs to be said. You are a very angry and sad person and I really hope you can find some sort of peace with yourself instead of bullying people on a Disney forum. I really feel sorry for you. I do not get angry with your posts...I feel pity for you and that is even worse. Good luck with your life and quit taking it so serious. #pleasefindhopeandquitdrinking

 

[RobBlock]

Yep, she intentionally misled people on her linked in profile. I have no idea how she may have represented herself to gain the job or on her resume. The most telling factor for me in the whole argument of should she be fired is that for the "social media manager" of a multi billion dollar media giant, she has the world's worst social media presence herself. That has to be the worst LinkedIn profile I've ever seen. A "social media expert" with only 3 connections on the world's largest professional social networking site? Google the rest of her social media footprint across the web. Most mommy bloggers have more of a social media presence and more professional looking. If Disney hired her as a social media expert, 5 minutes of a google search would show she's not qualified. Heck, I appear to be more qualified.

 

[MattM]

I'm going to very respectfully ask that you don't, Steve. There are a couple of individuals who have decided to come in here -- knowing that I get eyes and attention -- and try and divert attention, so, yes, the people in Burbank will decide it isn't worth reading etc. Then, those individuals can get all excited that they dinged the Spirit's armor in some small insiginificant and petulant way.

They've made their points known. Now, let them just move on. You know who they are. And I wouldn't doubt that they're PM'ing with each other and tag-teaming just to get their jollies.

You're right, Spirit. We're busted. We are all employees of TWDC conspiring to shut you down because you...and you singularly...threaten the very existence of Walt Disney World and the company as a whole.

...Said nobody, ever.

(At least that's what the people from CP who I am PM'ing with told me to say...if it weren't so pathetic that you actually thought that, it would be sad)

Sad that you think you have that much power or sway over an entity that has forgotten, if they ever knew, you exist. But maybe that's your real issue.

We can't be sure that you ever did any work with them. You say you did, but we don't know that. You call someone out for working for a company that they actually worked for, but remain an anonymous poster on the internet. You know what I hear about when I talk to people in Orlando/Disney about a random guy with an agenda on the internet? Absolutely nothing.

If you want to be King of a Disney Message Board...if that gets you to where you need to be in life, having completely control over a particular thread on the internet...then good for you.

***Watch our for black helicopters closely hovering above your residence tonight, it will be imaginary Iger coming after your imaginary influence on the Mouse House***

 

[luv]

I am of the opinion that Disney could shut down all social media stuff and it wouldn't make any difference at all.

(See, Nemo, I can take a side. )

 

[flynnibus]

I am of the opinion that Disney could shut down all social media stuff and it wouldn't make any difference at all.

(See, Nemo, I can take a side. )

Hey - I like the video content they share. I could care less if they don't allow dissenting comments or whatever or if I don't agree with all of their content. I consume what I want.. and skip what I don't want. Seems like a pretty good bargain to me.

 

[wannab@dis]

I think the whole problem with this "fibbing" issue is that the number of people who are of the post modern no absolutes era don't have a problem with it and those of us who are from the time period where 2+2=4 and didn't get participation ribbons still have a problem with false statements.

Actually, I believe there's another reason that is the crux of the issue. Someone arguing from moral authority while trying to get someone they don't like fired is the very definition of hypocrisy. I leave whether her linked-in profile accuracy is an issue to her boss... it's not up to me. My issue is simple... Multiple times '74 and his groupies have personally attacked people they don't like from the safe anonymity of their computer screen. Now they are trying to stoke up the mob to get someone fired.

 

[wm49rs]

Actually, I believe there's another reason that is the crux of the issue. Someone arguing from moral authority while trying to get someone they don't like fired is the very definition of hypocrisy. I leave whether her linked-in profile accuracy is an issue to her boss... it's not up to me. My issue is simple... Multiple times '74 and his groupies have personally attacked people they don't like from the safe anonymity of their computer screen. Now they are trying to stoke up the mob to get someone fired.

What part of refraining from insulting others in this thread went over your head? Or since you feel the mods are in the pockets of others you don't have to abide by their requests?

 

[FrankLapidus]

My issue is simple... Multiple times '74 and his groupies have personally attacked people they don't like from the safe anonymity of their computer screen. Now they are trying to stoke up the mob to get someone fired.

Easily resolved, block them all and they should all do likewise. This isn't an issue I'm too interested in but it's not about social media anymore, it's about two sides personally attacking the other and clearly there is no middle ground to be found here so it's going to rumble on because no one is going to back down. I drop in to the thread every now and then hoping to see some kind of new news pertaining to WDW and all it has been for the last few days is the same people taking shots at one another. Everyone has made it clear where they stand now and clearly no one is going to back down from that standpoint so let this particular case lie now and move on.

I'm not saying this to you specifically wannab@dis but in general. It would be a shame if this thread is locked but that's the only way this is going to end if the bickering continues.