Stack Exchange
log in

nvoigt

 Discussion on question by user71827: …

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
nvoigt
Nov 20, 2024 23:06
"Releasing a picture of someone cheating on their spouse is legal." Not in countries with privacy laws.
 

 Discussion on question by Gray Sheep:…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
nvoigt
Sep 20, 2024 08:31
A Betriebsrat (workers council) and a Gewerkschaft (Union) are two different things. Unions exist outside of companies, you can contact them and/or become a member completely independent of your company. A Betriebsrat is specific to the company. While it is common that the Betriebsrat consists of Union members, because of the outside expertise and help they might get to get elected, the workers could just vote people into the Betriebsrat that are independent and not belong to a union at all.
 

 Discussion on question by ohno: A cow…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
nvoigt
Sep 17, 2024 08:13
If "team lead" has any disciplinary oversight,or a workload other than their normal job, it should be in their contract. Especially since as a "lead" you should get paid more. If "lead" is just a fancy name for no change in job description, no real bite and no extra pay... yeah, I guess it doesn't matter... but then it doesn't matter whether you are or not, if nothing changes.
nvoigt
Sep 17, 2024 08:13
Where in the world do you live? Did your contract not reflect your new lead position? Or can a contract just be changed by one side alone in your country? Do you still make as much money as before, or was that a pay cut, too? So much of your story would be illegal where I live, but maybe you live in a country with no labor laws or written contracts?
 

 Discussion on answer by ohwilleke: Is…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
nvoigt
Jul 26, 2024 02:38
Isn't an IQ test supposed to test IQ independent of other factors? Other than having to know the actual language used by the test (lets say "English"), I don't see how a test can be used to discriminate, unless the test itself is incredibly faulty and doesn't actually measure IQ as defined.
 

 Discussion on answer by nvoigt: Parki…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
nvoigt
Jul 18, 2024 14:47
@Chuu Yes, naturally law is very location specific. That is why my answer is taged "Germany". Is your experience from Germany? That does not sound like it would be legal here. If it is from another location/juristiction, feel free to write another answer for that specific juristiction, that is why we don't have a single correct answer here.
nvoigt
Jul 18, 2024 14:47
What is clearly defined though court judgements is that parking at one store's customer parking without the intention to be their customer during the parking period is a clear violation. And I think going a different direction entering another business is a pretty good example of just that.
nvoigt
Jul 18, 2024 14:47
@DmitryGrigoryev It is still a grey area, because it isn't clearly defined what you are supposed to do. Are you to go straight to the store? What if you meet a friend and stop to chat? What if you stop to light a smoke? What if you don't want to ruin your new shoes and take a 20m detour on the better paved side of the road? How directly do you have to go to the store in question? Is stopping by a hot dog stand between parking and store okay? What if it isn't directly in the way, but 2m off the side? Point is: it's not clearly defined what exactly a violation is, or where it starts.
nvoigt
Jul 18, 2024 14:47
@Justinw That is most likely the practical outcome. Both would be a violation, by the book, but the first is easily observable by a guard just standing there, the second would require the guard to follow you around.
 

 Discussion on answer by nvoigt: Hourl…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
nvoigt
Jul 5, 2024 19:38
We can all discuss hypothetical rounding errors in systems we don't know anything about, or we could just take the OP by their word, that this is about pennies. If the OP wants to correct that, I am happy to ammend my answer, until then I think it is not very productive to make up fictional accounting software mistakes and argue that strawman.
nvoigt
Jul 5, 2024 19:38
@marcelm That might be a good argument, but right now it is a guess. The OP said "penny", so I will assume it is a ridiculously low amount. Sure, if that adds up to real money (like $20) that is no longer a "penny" in my book and should be treated accordingly. But I won't base my answer on a commenters unverified guess, as good as it may be.
nvoigt
Jul 5, 2024 19:38
@Fattie you can "litigate" all you want. I don't live in "crazy clown town", I live in the country of common sense. Assuming you won, you would get awarded damages, which in all scenarios is zero. I also mentioned twice that the company's books should be in order, so any audit by the tax authorities are pointless. If you assume things into my answer and judge it based on those assumptions, that is your right, but it doesn't change the fact that I have seen all three options and they worked.
nvoigt
Jul 5, 2024 19:38
@GuyIncognito That is true. However, I would assume that if someone gets paid hourly, there would stay clear of those limits way upwards of cents, since a year can have wildly different numbers of "workable" hours and you certainly don't want to step over the line there if one year had a public holiday on a weekday or was a leap year or something like that.
 

 Discussion on answer by nvoigt: In a …

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
nvoigt
May 24, 2024 13:16
@KaiBurghardt An appliance as part of the rental contract that is not working is a "Mangel" as in §536. Having a clause to the effect that the tennant is obligated to repair a "Mangel" is obviously against §536 (4). That is the last time I explained this. If you don't agree, please write your own answer.
nvoigt
May 24, 2024 13:16
@KaiBurghardt If you rent out an appartment "furnished", the furniture becomes part of the contract and a defect therefore is a "Mangel". You cannot have clauses defining the tennant as the person having to pay for it, so says §536 (4) "Bei einem Mietverhältnis über Wohnraum ist eine zum Nachteil des Mieters abweichende Vereinbarung unwirksam."
nvoigt
May 24, 2024 13:16
Yes, and clauses in contract can be void, if they are against the law. That clause is. You can rent out an appartment "furnished" or "unfurnished", you can even rent it out "unfurnished" and then lease the furniture to the tennant in whatever second contract you want, but you cannot rent it out "furnished, but with the furniture being the responsibility of the tennant". "Furnished" is a term with legal implications, you cannot undermine that with a contract clause. Instead of telling everyone they are wrong, it might be more fruitful to familiarize yourself with the laws relevant here.
nvoigt
May 24, 2024 13:16
@Tak "The contract says it is not"... uh, the OP themselves said "Provided furnished.", how do you know the contract in question better than the OP?
nvoigt
May 24, 2024 13:16
And yes, I do expect you to actually click on the link I provided in my post. We don't do duplicates here, so I linked to the post where I already explained the whole thing before.
nvoigt
May 24, 2024 13:16
@KaiBurghardt Feel free to start at berliner-mieterverein.de/recht/infoblaetter/… for quick primer. I quoted the relevant parts, I cannot quote the whole book here.
nvoigt
May 24, 2024 13:16
@Tak They cannot be in this case specific case. Maybe you just read the link, you seem to just post an opinion without any information on the actual laws in question here. This is about the German laws, not about who can say "no, you're wrong" the loudest. Feel free to contradict me with an answer of your own about the laws of German rental agreements. That should clear it up and give you more room to actually explain yourself and your opinion on the matter. Maybe even quote a relevant law?
nvoigt
May 24, 2024 13:16
@Tak The law. And I quoted it, so please stop posting unconstructive "you are wrong" comments under my answers, when you have no idea what you are talking about. Either write a contradicting answer, or not.
 

 Discussion on question by mreff555: D…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
nvoigt
May 20, 2024 09:45
Instead of going nuclear, did you try simply talking to the meeting organizer? Saying "hey, you placed that meeting on a day off, it's the second friday" sounds way easier than looking for a new job...
 

 Discussion on answer by nvoigt: My sp…

Imported from a comment discussion on expatriates.stackexchang...
nvoigt
May 7, 2024 02:36
This is my final say here: please stop calling my personal experiences "speculative", especially when you admit that your personal experience in this matter is zero.
nvoigt
May 7, 2024 02:36
Please stop conflating France or the UK with a topic about Germany and please stop insulting me. Do I run an import/export business for spouses? No. I did this only once. But I did it once. What is your expertise in this matter? Have you done this more often? Have you had your immigrant spouse with all their belongings come life in an 20m² appartment and it went well and was no toll on your mental health? Do tell. If you need more space, there is a feature called "Answer" where you can just write one that includes all that you find needs to go into one.
nvoigt
May 7, 2024 02:36
Well, I am sorry for anyone in a french prison cell or having to rent something in London or Paris, but I don't really see the relevance to the question, because it is about niether of those. I think it is very important to know how German buerocracy works, when dealing with it. You may have the right to do something, but your interaction with the administrative clerk and your knowledge of what they need to check their box is the difference between getting it now, or having to fight tooth and nail through a lawyer costing a lot of money.
nvoigt
May 7, 2024 02:36
hm, true, I checked it and it seems it went down from when I checked it last. However, my advice stands, 9m² is also the minimum prison cell size in Germany, consider moving into something that is larger than a prison cell, for your own mental health.
 

 Discussion on answer by nvoigt: Embar…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
nvoigt
Apr 21, 2024 06:37
That is the reason why I referenced the opiod crisis above: if the doctor tells you to do something detrimental to your own healing (like working while sick), that is not a doctor, that is a pill-pusher for capitalism. And if there is a doctor in your system who actually puts the patient first and not second, after the employers priorities, then by all means drop the current one and switch to the one that puts their patient first.
nvoigt
Apr 21, 2024 06:18
Do you know how skilled you need to be to cover shingles? Seems easy, right? But it's only easy if you do your 8h shift at work without peeing once. Because then you will be butt naked, and the person next on the throne three minutes later will be butt naked, too. And what is almost impossible to spread from dressed adult to dressed healthy adult, becomes highly dangerous to someone who just wanted to pee while pregnant.
nvoigt
Apr 21, 2024 06:16
Because it is counter-productive to the patients health AND even puts others at "low risk" that otherwise would have been at "zero risk".
nvoigt
Apr 21, 2024 06:15
Instead, the healthcare system opted to put the patient in a stressful situation with extra pain, probably told them to just pop a few extra painkillers, so they can work. That part, the part that does nothing to cure the patient, the drugs that are only there to make them work harder, not to cure them or soothe inevitable pain, THAT is the problem.
nvoigt
Apr 21, 2024 06:14
I have no problem with what the doctor prescribed for the patient to heal: anti-virals, maybe painkillers. I have a huge problem with the fact that that countires healthcare system does NOT do the optimal thing to cure the patient: Do what the doctor prescribed AT HOME WITH REST.
nvoigt
Apr 21, 2024 06:12
@Voo Lets agree on the "we are both not doctors" and listen to the actual doctor who saw the actual patient: " I've been advised to do by a doctor to minimize contact at work". So there is a risk. If you look it up, it is mostly to unvaccinated, vulnerable, elderly or pregnant people. But all those groups exist at a workplace.
nvoigt
Apr 20, 2024 02:51
Tell me again, for what do you want me to post sources? That rest helps patient recovery better than going to work in pain? Or that not exposing people to a risk reduces said risk of exposure? Do you have a doctor on file that says rest would not help? Or risk does not matter? Because even the OP is not claiming that.
nvoigt
Apr 20, 2024 02:51
And as far as listening to me goes... I think someone with shingles knows damn well what I am talking about, I don't need to do any convincing to them. That shit is not funny. They will know exactly that rest would be better for them, I have no doubt about that.
nvoigt
Apr 20, 2024 02:51
What do you think the "conflicting" information is exactly? If you asked the doctor what the optimal treatment, with the lowest risk is, do you really think they would say anything else than "rest at home and don't meet people"? The only reason they are at work is that "optimal treatment" is not the top priority in capitalistic societies. A little pain, a little risk, is acceptable if it means the worker can be exploited properly. From a purely medical point of view, I challenge you to find even a hint that what the doctor prescribed would not work better with rest at home.
nvoigt
Apr 20, 2024 02:51
If you think that a "little risk" is worth it, your perspective might change if that "litttle risk" fucks up one of your loved ones. Little risk in this case doesn't mean someone get's a little sick once in a while. It means it's rare, but if it happens then it really destroys a life. All so some poor sod in pain could be exploited in their job a little more.
nvoigt
Apr 20, 2024 02:51
I don't say I know better than "all the professionals". I say that according to my own experience and the hospital staff and doctors that I met along the way (which I trust to be educated on their own job) patients with shingles should stay home on paid sick leave to properly recover. If your health care system says they should pop some pills, grit their teeth and put on an even higher stress level detriment to their own recovery, that is one shitty system and I am sorry.
nvoigt
Apr 20, 2024 02:51
@JMac I have first hand experience with it and what it can do to vulnerable people. That is enough for me. Staying at home resting is safer for others and the correct way to cure it for the OP. Do you really think the people that brought you the opiod crisis are in a position to tell you how to cure something properly? By popping pills like there is no tomorrow and going back to work, despite the danger to you and others? I think there have been enough dead people by now that this kind of thinking should have been abolished. Paid sick leave is the proper way to cure a disease.
nvoigt
Apr 20, 2024 02:51
Well, both CDC and NHS say chicken pox is highly contagious and dangerous to pregnant, old and vulnerable people and carriers should neither go to work nor school with it. So saying shingles isn't that contagious, because it can "only" transmit chicken pox is true... and at the same time a totally weird way of saying "stay the hell at home with it". The fact that chicken pox exists isn't due to the fact that we just tell people "it's okay go spread", it's due to the fact that not everybody is a perfectly omniscient medical expert and people have chicken pox before they know it's chicken pox.
nvoigt
Apr 20, 2024 02:51
@Steve Yeah, there is a reason we don't get medical advice from elderly relatives any more. You cannot "have" shingles for that long. You can retain long term damage from your shingles you once had, even when it's done. And instead of explaining that every single time, you'd just say "shingles". Fair. That is what your relative probably had.
 

 Discussion on question by ZeroPhase: …

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
nvoigt
Apr 1, 2024 22:53
I think it would be more productive to use those psychologists to work on whateever is keeping you from working a normal job and making your own money. If you still rather cling to what you consider abuse, then get a real lawyer that you can trust with the details, because without any details, you will get a wild guess at best.
 

 Discussion on question by QuantumMan:…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
nvoigt
Apr 1, 2024 07:56
Have you already signed all neccessary papers? If they had not send you this new contract, would you have a valid employment contract for the 1st?
 

 Discussion on question by Pamela Gall…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
nvoigt
Mar 14, 2024 20:08
By "emails", do you mean the email address ([email protected]) or the actual email, subject, body, attachements and all? You said you had a "client", I assume that means you are not a private person but in business, is that correct? Are you in a country or doing business with people to whom the GDPR applies?
 

 Discussion on answer by nvoigt: Do yo…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
nvoigt
Feb 6, 2024 06:16
to make known to another or to the public generally: dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/…
nvoigt
Feb 6, 2024 06:16
Then do so, I literally cannot do any more then quote a dictionary to you. If you do not believe the dictionary, I cannot help.
nvoigt
Feb 6, 2024 06:16
Compare it to libel. Obviously you can libel anybody you want, to your private friends in emails, and if they keep their mouth shut, nobody will ever know or sue you. Doesn't make it legal though. It's still libel, because you talked to a third party aka "published" it. It doesn't need to be publicized (I think that is the word you were looking for originally).
nvoigt
Feb 6, 2024 06:16
I already told you, "public" just means a third party. Not "public" as in open to the general public. Obviously nobody will ever sue you, if you really keep it private, because nobody will ever know. So it is kinda self-evident whether you "published" something, if you end up getting sued, it wasn't as "private" as you thought. Keeping it under wraps and not getting caught doesn't make it legal though.
nvoigt
Feb 6, 2024 06:16
@MichaelHall "publishing" isn't commercial publication. It is anything you do with that photo that involves a second pair of eyes. If I look it up in a dictionary, it says "law: communicate to a third party". Any third party. Not just the general public.
nvoigt
Feb 6, 2024 06:16
@MichaelHall "Publishing" is showing the screenshot to a friend or uploading it to the cloud or social media. Basically if you don't want to take Schrödingers Screenshot, in that state where no-one knows about it, because no-one opened it, then publishing is the very core of the issue. You also should know that we answer for all juristictions, especially since the question was not tagged US at the time I answered, and had nothing US specific in it.
 

 Discussion on question by throwaway12…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
nvoigt
Jan 26, 2024 19:00
@PCLuddite Well, wether your coworkers want something outrageous borderline illegal, or something perfectly acceptable in your country is certainly making a difference in responding to their request, don't you think?