Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[webny99]

With that in mind, it is my expectation that people in normal everyday life will keep their pants on.  If my pants were to fall down to my knees as I was heading into my boss's office at work, then that would be embarrassing for both of us.  If you come over to my house for dinner, then I expect you to keep your pants from falling off.  Knowing what brand and style of underwear you have isn't a big deal in the locker room, but it's not something people should find out while waiting for their order at Burger King.

And, when someone lets their pants sag to the point that it's obviously noticeable, then it basically looks like they're halfway to ending up undressed—and that they don't really care—and, moreover, that they actually want that.  It looks like, any second now, they might end up "letting it all hang out", and that they're fine with that, to the point that they didn't even bother to put on a belt.

On the other hand: is it really all that different from wearing pajamas to the grocery store, or Burger King, or whatever?

[kphoger]

On the other hand: is it really all that different from wearing pajamas to the grocery store, or Burger King, or whatever?

I think that's tacky, yes, but it isn't the same thing.  (Again, this isn't necessarily completely logical.)  Pajamas are a step, or more than one step, above underwear.

[J N Winkler]

Wikipedia has articles on both sagging and buttock cleavage.  The version of the prison origin story for sagging I have heard (not mentioned in the Wikipedia article) is that it is deliberate sexual display, as was also true of its use in several of the Marky Mark underwear ads from the 1990's.  The article on plumber's crack notes that several fashion designers, such as Alexander McQueen, have intentionally incorporated it into their jeans.

[ZLoth]

I won't talk about sagging pants. What I will talk about is something that bugs me about work. If you want to leave a company to pursue work at another employer, it is good practice to provide two weeks notice "to minimum interruption and train your replacement." Yet, if the company decides that your services are no longer needed (outside of a mass layoff), they can drop you "at will" with no regards for how the termination of service affects your personal life or finances. Now, I understand that there is some good security concerns behind that policy (you don't want a disgruntled worker around some critical systems that would negatively affect the company should critical data get lost or the system has a costly shutdown), but still...

[kphoger]

I won't talk about sagging pants. What I will talk about is something that bugs me about work. If you want to leave a company to pursue work at another employer, it is good practice to provide two weeks notice "to minimum interruption and train your replacement." Yet, if the company decides that your services are no longer needed (outside of a mass layoff), they can drop you "at will" with no regards for how the termination of service affects your personal life or finances. Now, I understand that there is some good security concerns behind that policy (you don't want a disgruntled worker around some critical systems that would negatively affect the company should critical data get lost or the system has a costly shutdown), but still...

Of course, depending on the state of course, they can drop you "at will" at any time they like—two weeks notice or not.

[webny99]

On the other hand: is it really all that different from wearing pajamas to the grocery store, or Burger King, or whatever?

I think that's tacky, yes, but it isn't the same thing.  (Again, this isn't necessarily completely logical.)  Pajamas are a step, or more than one step, above underwear.

I think of them as more or less "on the same level". Both encompass a wide variety of articles and would usually be considered unsuitable in a formal or professional setting.

[webny99]

I won't talk about sagging pants. What I will talk about is something that bugs me about work. If you want to leave a company to pursue work at another employer, it is good practice to provide two weeks notice "to minimum interruption and train your replacement." Yet, if the company decides that your services are no longer needed (outside of a mass layoff), they can drop you "at will" with no regards for how the termination of service affects your personal life or finances. Now, I understand that there is some good security concerns behind that policy (you don't want a disgruntled worker around some critical systems that would negatively affect the company should critical data get lost or the system has a costly shutdown), but still...

Of course, depending on the state of course, they can drop you "at will" at any time they like—two weeks notice or not.

I think that was the point: it's bothersome that an employee has to give two weeks notice, while the employer does not.

Of course, this is why many employers offer severance pay when terminating an employee, so they have an income while they search for a new job.

[JayhawkCO]

I won't talk about sagging pants. What I will talk about is something that bugs me about work. If you want to leave a company to pursue work at another employer, it is good practice to provide two weeks notice "to minimum interruption and train your replacement." Yet, if the company decides that your services are no longer needed (outside of a mass layoff), they can drop you "at will" with no regards for how the termination of service affects your personal life or finances. Now, I understand that there is some good security concerns behind that policy (you don't want a disgruntled worker around some critical systems that would negatively affect the company should critical data get lost or the system has a costly shutdown), but still...

Of course, depending on the state of course, they can drop you "at will" at any time they like—two weeks notice or not.

I think that was the point: it's bothersome that an employee has to give two weeks notice, while the employer does not.

Of course, this is why many employers offer severance pay when terminating an employee, so they have an income while they search for a new job.

I wouldn't say many employers. Quite few in fact.

[kphoger]

I think that was the point: it's bothersome that an employee has to give two weeks notice, while the employer does not.

Oh, I thought he was talking about the situation where an employee gives two weeks' notice, and then the employer terms him immediately, rather than letting him work another two weeks.

[JayhawkCO]

I think that was the point: it's bothersome that an employee has to give two weeks notice, while the employer does not.

Oh, I thought he was talking about the situation where an employee gives two weeks' notice, and then the employer terms him immediately, rather than letting him work another two weeks.

He was, but that stems from an employer also being able to let someone go at their discretion in 'at will' states -- notice or not.

[J N Winkler]

Pretty much all of the states (and equivalent jurisdictions) in the US have at-will employment by default, though there are typically exceptions for public policy (e.g., can't fire an employee as retaliation for reporting illegal conduct or because of the color of his or her skin) and workplaces covered by a collective bargaining agreement.  Employment by written contract is not the norm in the US the way it is in the UK.

[kphoger]

This all leads to the unfortunate situation in which it often works to the employee's benefit to not even give two weeks' notice—but rather to just up-and-quit once he's ready to start his new job.

[JayhawkCO]

This all leads to the unfortunate situation in which it often works to the employee's benefit to not even give two weeks' notice—but rather to just up-and-quit once he's ready to start his new job.

I've always given at least two weeks notice at every job I've had, even back in high school. I had one place where I worked that was known for not paying out accrued vacation despite it being in their handbook that they would do so. So, I took my week and a half vacation and, on the drive to the airport, I emailed them my 2 week notice so they wouldn't have the ability to just let me go and not pay me. I felt scummy, but their shitty business ethics pretty much drove me to it.

[7/8]

Employment by written contract is not the norm in the US the way it is in the UK.

Wait, so most Americans don't sign an employment contract? How does a worker guarantee the employer provides them the agreed-upon salary, vacation days, sick days, etc. without a contract?

[kphoger]

This all leads to the unfortunate situation in which it often works to the employee's benefit to not even give two weeks' notice—but rather to just up-and-quit once he's ready to start his new job.

I've always given at least two weeks notice at every job I've had, even back in high school. I had one place where I worked that was known for not paying out accrued vacation despite it being in their handbook that they would do so. So, I took my week and a half vacation and, on the drive to the airport, I emailed them my 2 week notice so they wouldn't have the ability to just let me go and not pay me. I felt scummy, but their shitty business ethics pretty much drove me to it.

The only time I didn't give two week's notice is when I quit a job I had through a temp agency.  I went in for an interview, they said they'd hire me, I asked when I should start, and they answered, "How about this evening?"  So I drove to the DMV to get a copy of my driving record and, on my way from there to my new job, I stopped by the temp agency and told them I quit.

I felt a little bad.  But, on the other hand, a temp job is by nature temporary.

[JayhawkCO]

Employment by written contract is not the norm in the US the way it is in the UK.

Wait, so most Americans don't sign an employment contract? How does a worker guarantee the employer provides them the agreed-upon salary, vacation days, sick days, etc. without a contract?

For "career-type" jobs, you sign your offer letter initially which guarantees your salary and then other bits of paperwork basically saying you agree to the employee handbook and such which will have all of your benefits information. So, it's similar to what you've have the U.K. but there is nothing that implies the amount of notice that either party need provide in case one side wants to terminate the contract. For less "career-type" jobs, i.e. restaurant workers, gas station attendants, etc., you just sign something in your paperwork after you verbally agree to the pay rate.

It's just professional courtesy in the U.S. for the employee to provide at least two weeks notice when they want to quit. The employer, in reality, doesn't have any requirement to provide notice. That said, most larger companies, if they want to lay you off, will provide pretty extensive notice if for no other reason than mitigating bad publicity.

[TheHighwayMan394]

I've seen proponents of at-will state that "well if benefits employees too as they can leave any bad or undesirable situation at any time" but it's clear to me it's one of those things designed to benefit employers more.

At a number of jobs I worked, the at-will employment part was the most important thing they wanted you to know. It was always listed first in the handbook with CYAs about "at-will employment overrides any contradictions that may be present in this manual"

[Scott5114]

re the pants-sagging thing: I just don't feel the need to be the arbiter of what is "appropriate" or not in places where I have no authority to do so. If I owned a business that were open to the public and someone were to wear something inappropriate, I might feel inclined to say something (although I've always thought dress codes were sort of stupid). But if someone wears something inappropriate/tacky in Walmart, it doesn't bother me—I'm not in charge of Walmart so saying what is and is not appropriate to wear there isn't any of my business.

Honestly, I think the world might be a better (or at least more interesting) place if we lightened up on what people wore. We used to have a customer at the casino who would show up on occasion decked out like an 18th-century pirate. It was awesome. But I could never do something like that. I would feel too self-conscious that people were judging me for wearing something "inappropriate". Yeah, being dressed as a pirate to do your errands is inappropriate attire, but it would make buying groceries more fun...

Employment by written contract is not the norm in the US the way it is in the UK.

Wait, so most Americans don't sign an employment contract? How does a worker guarantee the employer provides them the agreed-upon salary, vacation days, sick days, etc. without a contract?

They don't. Basically, when you go into a job, you simply have to trust that they will honor the salary and benefits they promised you during the recruitment/hiring process. Most places, but not all, will give you a paper to sign outlining this, and you sign that paper to accept the position. But as far as I know it's not legally binding. That being said, only particularly scummy companies will change things on you like that, because most people will react to "pay/benefits not being what was agreed to" by quitting. More common is them promising you something like a raise or a change in schedule after a period of time ("we'll start you at $10/hour on graveyard shift, and then after six months you'll be out of your training period so we'll raise you to $15 and move you to swing") and then after that time elapses coming up with excuses ("well, we can't move you to swing until after we replace Marsha...and the budget is a little tight so we can't go through with the raise yet...")

Employment is, like healthcare, one of the parts of American society that is about 75 years behind best practice in most other Western countries. Minimum wage is still US$7.25/hour, and there is no requirement to provide any sort of sick leave or vacation time. The idea is that companies will have to compete for employees by offering more luxurious benefits to make themselves a more attractive employer, but in practice that only tends to happen for jobs with more specialized requirements. And when conditions change that make employment in certain fields unpalatable, a good chunk of the populace has been brainwashed into asking "Why are people too lazy to work anymore?" rather than "What's wrong with these jobs that's causing nobody to want to take them?"

[kphoger]

re the pants-sagging thing: I just don't feel the need to be the arbiter of what is "appropriate" or not in places where I have no authority to do so.

Well, yeah, I don't tell people to dress differently.  But you asked why it "bothers" us, so I answered.

[1995hoo]

To raise a minor annoyance aside from sagging jeans and employment:

Political ads on TV. I’m at the point where I just hit "mute" when they cut to commercial at this time of year.

[kphoger]

Basically, when you go into a job, you simply have to trust that they will honor the salary and benefits they promised you during the recruitment/hiring process. Most places, but not all, will give you a paper to sign outlining this, and you sign that paper to accept the position. But as far as I know it's not legally binding.

I mean, even if they did have a contract to sign, I'm 100% sure it would contain the phrase "subject to change at any time".

[kphoger]

To raise a minor annoyance aside from sagging jeans and employment:

Political ads on TV. I’m at the point where I just hit "mute" when they cut to commercial at this time of year.

It's especially annoying when all the ad intends to do is make you hate the opponent.  There's a political ad that airs multiple times during every episode of Burn Notice my wife and I watch on Hulu—and I still have no idea who they want me to vote for.  All they do is bad-mouth their opponent, which might make a lot more sense if I already knew who was in the race.

But now, if I decide to go to the polls later, I will have one name brightly emblazoned in my mind.  And that name recognition might actually prompt me to vote for the guy, just because his name might be the only one I recognize on the ballot.  Also, if I consider the knocks against him as being rather feeble and reaching, then I might even figure there was nothing more substantial to hold against him.

[Scott5114]

Basically, when you go into a job, you simply have to trust that they will honor the salary and benefits they promised you during the recruitment/hiring process. Most places, but not all, will give you a paper to sign outlining this, and you sign that paper to accept the position. But as far as I know it's not legally binding.

I mean, even if they did have a contract to sign, I'm 100% sure it would contain the phrase "subject to change at any time".

Yeah. Theoretically an employer could cut your pay at any time. They just know that doing that is normally a guaranteed way to lose an employee (and that employee is likely to spread the word to potential replacements), so they don't do that.

[US 89]

It's nice to think of a board meeting where the CEO says "Well, we budgeted for 50% profit and thanks to increased efficiency, we got 55%, so let's lower the prices", but has that ever happened? American business culture is to say "hey cool, increased profit!" and congratulate yourself by raising your own salary.

And this is why I don't like self-checkout lanes at the store.  Take away people's jobs in the name of keeping prices low?  Yeah, I'm guessing not.

At least two of our local Dillon's (Kroger) stores now have a new kind of self-checkout.  The self-scan terminal is the same, but there's a full-length conveyor belt from there down to a sacking area.  This isn't very convenient for a single shopper, as you have to scan all your items, let them pile up a couple of yards away, and then go over there to sack them all up while the next shopper is anxiously waiting.  But, for two people shopping together, it's great.  One person scans, the other one sacks.

And now I'm hooked.  My desire to interact with a human employee in the checkout lane has been eclipsed by my desire to be in control of how my groceries get sacked.  I can now generally walk out of the store with one well-packed cardboard flat (like what they have produce in at Aldi) and two well-packed paper sacks.  I'm a happy camper.

Oh, I love those things. I've only ever seen them in Walmarts though - and the ones I've seen have the conveyor belt leading up into the scan terminal.

[wanderer2575]

To raise a minor annoyance aside from sagging jeans and employment:

Political ads on TV. I’m at the point where I just hit "mute" when they cut to commercial at this time of year.

It's especially annoying when all the ad intends to do is make you hate the opponent.  There's a political ad that airs multiple times during every episode of Burn Notice my wife and I watch on Hulu—and I still have no idea who they want me to vote for.  All they do is bad-mouth their opponent, which might make a lot more sense if I already knew who was in the race.

My response to anyone bad-mouthing the opponent:  I'm not interested in why the other person/party is wrong for the job; I want to hear specifics on why YOUR person/party is RIGHT for the job.  Every time I have used that line on a campaigner, I have been met with a blank stare and silence as apparently his/her 8-track slips off the spools.