Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

legal case

moneymachine2004
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2012 10:51:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
b. Permanent employees in the service of the State or a political subdivision shall be laid off inverse order of seniority. As used in this subsection, "seniority" means the length of continuous permanent service in the jurisdiction, regardless of title held during the period of service, except for police and firefighters titles, "seniority" means the length of continuous permanent service only in the current permanent title and any other title that has lateral or demotionals rights to the current the permanent title. Seniority for all titles shall be based on the total length of calendar years, months and days in continuous permanent service regardless of the length of employee's work week, work year or part-time statue

based on the statue, will a lawyer with 5 years service, be laid off before a mail clerk with 10 years of service.

Your thoughts on that question...

I need your input, if you have time.

thank you
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2012 10:54:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Are you the lawyer or the mail clerk? If you're the lawyer, you should probably know this. If you're the clerk, you're probably gone unless you're the only clerk.
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2012 11:05:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yeah the less skilled ones go first, mail clerk = bye. These clerks may still be skilled, but lawyers usually go through special training so they get a leg up in this situation.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Mimshot
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2012 11:45:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's a very strangely worded statute. Are you sure you copied it correctly? The real issue is what the "except for" clause modifies, because it could be parsed as either referring to the previous or subsequent procedure.
Mimshot: I support the 1956 Republican platform
DDMx: So, you're a socialist?
Mimshot: Yes