LogFAQs > #942131482

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, Database 6 ( 01.01.2020-07.18.2020 ), DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Politics Containment Topic 310: Kanye Believe It?
Corrik7 07/15/20 3:54:59 AM #438:	StealThisSheen posted... +She's an employee Correct for the wrong reasons. You were unequivocally INCORRECT by law standards until you stumbled upon an article you googled 2 minutes prior that talked about a voluntary agreement to abide by rules and take an employee status when she didn't have to. Which, of course, I didn't know existed either or this would have never existed as an argument. But, for the record, you had zero idea this existed either and were arguing from a completely incorrect standpoint. StealThisSheen posted... +As an employee, she must follow the ethics regulations Correct. She has to abide by ethics regulations due to voluntarily taking a status as an employee that she did not have to take for the job she was doing. Again. Right for the wrong reasons. She does not have to abide by employee ethics if she did not take that status. That precisely is what had people nervous about her taking the advisor role. Which, your own article showed. StealThisSheen posted... +Her being unpaid does not change her official status as an employee of the executive. This is 100% incorrect as proven by supreme court ruling. Your own article said she took the status of an employee on only to assuage fears of her not having to abide by ethics, which she wouldn't have had to as an unpaid employee under supreme court rulings. StealThisSheen posted... +The NRLA doesn't apply to federal employees The supreme court and the FLSA do apply to federal employees (some FLSA regulations for the executive branch are exempt such as pay standards, but employment existing or not does apply by supreme court ruling). The fact you are reading a NRLA case that is relying on 4 supreme court case rulings in regards to various degrees and the last one being under FLSA standards for what seems employment or not speaks to your own reading comprehension. +The other ruling you were trying to cite (regarding the FLSA pay regulations) also doesn't apply to federal employees of the executive The ruling on what deems an employee or not does. Typical liberal living in an echo chamber. Surprising. --- Xbox Live User Name - Corrik Currently playing: Spider-Man (PS4), Quantum Break (X1) <cite>Corrik7 posted [p:942131482] in Politics C... [t:78829076]...</cite> <quote>StealThisSheen posted... </cite> <quote>+She's an employee</quote>Correct for the wrong reasons. You were unequivocally INCORRECT by law standards until you stumbled upon an article you googled 2 minutes prior that talked about a voluntary agreement to abide by rules and take an employee status when she didn't have to. Which, of course, I didn't know existed either or this would have never existed as an argument. But, for the record, you had zero idea this existed either and were arguing from a completely incorrect standpoint. StealThisSheen posted... </cite> <quote>+As an employee, she must follow the ethics regulations</quote>Correct. She has to abide by ethics regulations due to voluntarily taking a status as an employee that she did not have to take for the job she was doing. Again. Right for the wrong reasons. She does not have to abide by employee ethics if she did not take that status. That precisely is what had people nervous about her taking the advisor role. Which, your own article showed. StealThisSheen posted... </cite> <quote>+Her being unpaid does not change her official status as an employee of the executive.</quote>This is 100% incorrect as proven by supreme court ruling. Your own article said she took the status of an employee on only to assuage fears of her not having to abide by ethics, which she wouldn't have had to as an unpaid employee under supreme court rulings. StealThisSheen posted... </cite> <quote>+The NRLA doesn't apply to federal employees</quote> The supreme court and the FLSA do apply to federal employees (some FLSA regulations for the executive branch are exempt such as pay standards, but employment existing or not does apply by supreme court ruling). The fact you are reading a NRLA case that is relying on 4 supreme court case rulings in regards to various degrees and the last one being under FLSA standards for what seems employment or not speaks to your own reading comprehension. +The other ruling you were trying to cite (regarding the FLSA pay regulations) also doesn't apply to federal employees of the executive The ruling on what deems an employee or not does. Typical liberal living in an echo chamber. Surprising. --- Xbox Live User Name - Corrik Currently playing: Spider-Man (PS4), Quantum Break (X1)</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1