Seems like a regular banking job. Does fox business think they were looking for someone to help with conducting financial crimes?

What did the paperwork say?

No, that’s just your opinion…which is obviously wrong

You’re organizing? Or their campaign booked your venue and you answered their questions correctly - in that the building itself is ADA compliant

Reread my comment, and then I guess go back to yours and change “hit” to “punch” to make me look like a dummy.

Your example is poop. No one gets “punched” in the face by accident. You can get “hit” in the face on accident. A “punch” is intended.

And you know all your representatives? And their disabilities and allergies I assume?

And their building literally is. The person answering the phone probably didn’t think through the stage aspect. I doubt the phone operator at the front desk was some political schill that wanted to embarrass anyone.

I don’t think they didn’t care, more sounds like it just didn’t come to mind. In their defense they probably have not had many wheelchair bound performers in the past, otherwise there would have been a solution in place

Sure, if you have absolutely no idea how AI works that is

So you assumed she was a bimbo gold digger? I mean the article states all her credentials.

She knew she was in the wrong, why not just pay the 2000 and move on. Why take this to a tribunal and have your name published in public forums as either a thief, or a person that can’t use what sounds like fairly basic technology?

Not to be that guy/gal, but if work isn’t being completed on time, this could actually just be a lazy person who is purposefully putting in little effort. No amount of training is going to fix that. When I managed folks, if you were at the bottom of pile regarding amount of work you completed in the same time as other colleagues, you were offered training (which involved repeating things folks already knew) or you were counseled out - either way chances are you don’t/didn’t like the work, so why continue being miserable. Why should I keep paying the low performer, when I can just use that training time for a new employee who is willing to put in the work. You can make the argument that it is costlier to hire new employees, but the toll low performers take on the moral of the rest of team isn’t great either. How would you feel knowing that someone who puts in 30% of your effort, gets paid similarly (granted performance based bonus and raises are highly variable)

Also read the article. It has absolutely nothing to do with someone having too much work to do in a small amount of time. She even admits she mis-logged as well as claims to have been working with paper documents of which she doesn’t have any proof of.

Trust me bro

132 comments and zero karma…. Tough room for rice tips

Get out of the shower and go outside more. I’d say it’s the complete opposite, if anything as you get older you will laugh at anything (even jokes that you miss the punchline to)