I've been working in a smaller branch of one of my employer's stores...

And have been sexually harassed multiple times by women employees and customers alike. 2 women employees have grabbed my arse and literally thrown themselves at me, giving it the old "tee-hee, I'm so silly" crap. Another keeps telling me how "smoking hot" I am. Women customers are even more brazen, and just grab me and try to kiss me and shit. I kid you not. I'm not exactly in my prime, either, but I am in very good shape and look pretty good for my age (37).

I'm only part time, and have been sent to that store to sort out the disaster that it is. The men staff there appear to be terrified of me. I have been told I look "fierce" many times, because I get tunnel vision and focus on my work, yet I'm actually really laid back.

I don't masturbate or watch porn, and barely use my internet or TV, so maybe there's an air of mystique about me because I choose not to participate in TV programming/sports/politics/video games etc. and dedicate my time to reading, learning and exercise.

I'm a guy, though, and I brush it all off, because I know what I'm capable of.

Rant over. Have a great weekend, lads.

You are VERY delusional... and ill-informed.

The CORRECT word IS "unenforceable" -- VOID is a colloquial misunderstanding (usually stated by people who have little or NO actual experience with the law & the courts), to wit:

An unenforceable contract or transaction is one that is valid but one the court will not enforce. Unenforceable is usually used in contradiction to void (or void ab initio) and voidable. If the parties perform the agreement, it will be valid, but the court will not compel them if they do not.

RARELY will an entire contract (employment OR other) be deemed entirely "VOID" by any court; but it is quite common for certain clauses/provisions of contracts (and especially "employment 'policies'") WILL be deemed "unenforceable."

As for the rest of what you wrote... you're even FURTHER offbase, delusional and mis-informed.

[–]DWShimoda4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]DWShimoda0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]DWShimoda0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Even when it is legal to possess, it's not against the law to tell employees not to do it. You will not win a wrongful termination clause for being fired for bringing a recording device to work, even if it's a body camera for self defense. In any of the 50 states, or Canada.

"The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), when controlled by appointees of President Obama, ruled that restrictions on employee recordings at work generally violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

In December 2017, however, the NLRB, now controlled by appointees of President Trump, reversed the Obama-era ruling by holding in The Boeing Company, that bans on workplace recording are generally lawful.8 " Im quite serious when I warn people against this, Boeing fucked people trying to protect themselves.

[–]DWShimoda0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

Laws side with employers, and contracts are written by lawyers employed by employers. As for things 'unenforceable'(the term is void) in contracts, only if they contravene employment law(written by republicans who are buddies with employers). Employers can do as they please as far as 'personal electronic devices' are concerned. They can specify what is permitted, when it's permitted. etc. Retail will boot you for a body camera in the exact same way they boot someone with their cellphone on their person on the job. They will instruct you to leave it in the lunch room if they don't send you home then and there. Ive witnessed dozens of conflagrations between an employer and an isolated employee, can count 2 incidents where the employee didn't get rekted. An unenforcable contract is a legal contract the courts will not enforce, a void contract is one where something is illegal, a voidable contract is one where one(or both) partners can back out at any time. Most employment contracts are voidable. Your advice could cost people their jobs. As for cases settled behind the scenes, believe me, you have to prove I fucked up while I can sue you for defamation. Loads of states have laws saying you can't speak ill of your employer. AG gag bills and the sort. Sage.

[–]DWShimoda0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Laws side with employers, and contracts are written by lawyers employed by employers. As for things 'unenforceable'(the term is void) in contracts, only if they contravene employment law(written by republicans who are buddies with employers)

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

i want you to be right my man, I want this man to be able to record these bitches crossing the line and that the recording will stop it, I want to believe a body camera is a viable option. Ive been in this guy's situation, it fucking sucks. But Ive also seen people fired for personal electronic devices(cellphones) even when they are not used, Ive seen people fired for bullshit reasons and have no recourse, and Ive been once or twice in a room with 3 hostile managers picking apart my alleged misdeeds with no real chance to defend myself. I can see a woman claiming she is uncomfortable because she thinks he's recording her without her consent, I can see management curb stomping him, I can see the courts laughing at him because he's a man and it's not a big deal when we get harassed or touched by women without our consent. That said, if's he's in the right state, has sound legal advice, and plays his cards right; maybe a fair shake is possible.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DWShimoda0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You are free to believe or not believe what I say. If you choose to sue for wrongful termination or file regarding discrimination. I can tell you that I did not permit you recording devices, which is within my right as an employer. I can say you irrevocably damaged the employment relations, women can claim they felt threatened by being recorded without their knowledge. You do your leg work, pay the fees, hire the attorneys, book the dates. You have to prove I 1)broke labor law or 2)broke the employment contract. I wrote the employment contract, I can alter it at will; you will not win on that front. I do not have to prove you recorded anything, the fact it was present. People get fired for having personal electronic devices all the time. I do not have to prove you used it. So you have a recording, or you don't. Do we require both parties to consent(people get nailed on this) or one. This is a no win for people.

[–]Blissbynature1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I've been working in a smaller branch of one of my employer's stores...

Comments

ROTFLMAO

You are VERY delusional... and ill-informed.

Whether that is actually "the end of the matter" though... is an entirely different story.

Title	I've been working in a smaller branch of one of my employer's stores...
Author	bang_the_bongo
Upvotes	9
Comments	15
Date	May 25, 2019 6:21 PM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MGTOW
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MGTOW/comments/bsxp0e/ive_been_working_in_a_smaller_branch_of_one_of_my/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MGTOW/ive-been-working-in-a-smaller-branch-of-one-of-my.459667 https://theredarchive.com/post/459667