Please Read Before Taking a Job with ERAC

Originally Posted by Core767

I bet your college degree was written in crayon if you honestly believe that companies pay pretty much the same across the board, regardless of the cost of living standards in each distinct geographical location! Every single company that is nationwide adjusts the pay of their employees based on the location that each employee lives. If you live in Kansas and make $850 every 2 weeks and are married (which is the average hourly cumulative amount ERAC pays Washington D.C MTs) you are considered "average" in terms of income. If you are a recent college graduate making that amount, then you are doing above average in income. The average apartment in a place like Topeka, KS (the capital city) costs anywhere from $400 - $600 a month and, which gives you $400 - $600 in disposable income per month (not including a car payment, which can cost anywhere from $150 - $250 a month). How do I know? I used to live there! Do the math!!

The simple fact is ERAC will not pay you the same in Kansas as they would in Washington D.C - they will pay you significantly less!! In my experience, having lived in Kansas and now out by Washington D.C, I know for a fact that a person needs to earn about 50% more in income out in Washington D.C than he or she does in Topeka Kansas to maintain the same living standard/lifestyle they are accustomed to. So don't smuggly and arrogantly dismiss the complaints made by people here on this site. The evidence weighs much more heavily in their favor than yours.

By the way, if I were you, I'd return that colorful, crayon drawn degree to whatever disfuctional college you went to and go to a school where you might actually learn something!

Like a college that could teach you how to spell dysfunctional?

[Core767]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Like a college that could teach you how to spell dysfunctional?

I never said I went to a school with excellent grammar and spelling program - though I could have used the spell check on my computer. Oh well!!

[Core767]

Originally Posted by Core767

I never said I went to a school with excellent grammar and spelling program - though I could have used the spell check on my computer. Oh well!!

There I go again - showing just how great an education I got by omitting words now too!! Got to love it when you body doesn't do what your mind tells it to do!!

Originally Posted by Core767

There I go again - showing just how great an education I got by omitting words now too!! Got to love it when you body doesn't do what your mind tells it to do!!

Don't blame the body. I doubt the mind knows how to do it in the first place.

[Core767]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Don't blame the body. I doubt the mind knows how to do it in the first place.

You underestimate the POWER, of the darkside!!

[gp65:(]

Originally Posted by Core767

If ERAC is firing women for pregnancy reasons, then you can sue the pants off of them. It is called pregnancy discrimination and is full-blown against the law - especially regarding the EOE clause that all employers must follow. Even if the woman's pregnancy is considered high risk and she, on doctors order, is placed on bed rest - the company cannot fire her. I know women outside of ERAC that had this happen to them at another employer and they easily won the law suits that they brought against their former employers.

It wouldn't surprise me, though, if ERAC does do this. The amount of money they pay their employees dwarfs in comparisson to the cost of legal fees, and so they can arrogantly think that they can act with autonomy. However, I do know of a way to help with legal costs so it won't kill you.

A lot of what ERAC does is so subtle. They just won't ever find you a promotion if you make waves, and find a reason to fire you eventually.

Human resources exists to protect the company. H/r wouldn't let anyone get fired while pregnant for fear of wrongful termination lawsuits. If a manager fired someone on leave, h/r would reinstate them right away to avoid a lawsuit. ERAC has deep pockets and the cost of a lawsuit, or even settling out of court, would be far more than any one employee's salary... so it just wouldn't happen. Not for feel-good employee morale, but because big business doesn't stay big business by firing people without more than enough documentation to do so. Even then, firing a person on leave, for any reason, just wouldn't happen. I've seen this one firsthand.

[Core767]

Originally Posted by bleedgreen

Human resources exists to protect the company. H/r wouldn't let anyone get fired while pregnant for fear of wrongful termination lawsuits. If a manager fired someone on leave, h/r would reinstate them right away to avoid a lawsuit. ERAC has deep pockets and the cost of a lawsuit, or even settling out of court, would be far more than any one employee's salary... so it just wouldn't happen. Not for feel-good employee morale, but because big business doesn't stay big business by firing people without more than enough documentation to do so. Even then, firing a person on leave, for any reason, just wouldn't happen. I've seen this one firsthand.

Exactly..."Human resources exists to protect the company." I could not have said it better myself. And having repeated what you said, I should point out that, while the rest of what you say has merit - it is not absolute. The fact of the matter is that companies, large and small, do fire employees for unjustifiable reasons. Employees have been fired for taking leave due to illness, pregnancy, or a personal crisis such as a death in the family. Employees have even been fired due to the fact that they are members of the armed forces and from time to time need to take leave to fulfill their military obligations. Why have they been fired?? Because the companies see these types of circumstances as cutting into company profits and they would rather risk the chance of getting sued for firing the person, than hurting profits. Why? Because, in many cases, it is difficult for a fired employee to afford legal representation, especially good legal representation that will equally match or be superior to that of the employers legal representation - as you so politely put it:"ERAC has deep pockets." So I believe this is where you argument falls apart. It is because a company, such as ERAC, has deep pockets that the company would be more likely to fire the employee and risk a law suit than continue having that employee be an "expense". The company simply has a better chance of firing them and nothing happening than continuing the employees tenure and lose money. And HR would go along with the ride, following suit with what the company wants - not being a "champion" of employee rights!

I am not saying that ERAC openly engages in this practice, though I don't doubt they do as I know this practice is used in other large companies. But you can't tell me that ERAC is a sweet little angel championing the rights of its workers. They are far from it!!

[gp65:(]

Originally Posted by Core767

Exactly..."Human resources exists to protect the company." I could not have said it better myself. And having repeated what you said, I should point out that, while the rest of what you say has merit - it is not absolute. The fact of the matter is that companies, large and small, do fire employees for unjustifiable reasons. Employees have been fired for taking leave due to illness, pregnancy, or a personal crisis such as a death in the family. Employees have even been fired due to the fact that they are members of the armed forces and from time to time need to take leave to fulfill their military obligations. Why have they been fired?? Because the companies see these types of circumstances as cutting into company profits and they would rather risk the chance of getting sued for firing the person, than hurting profits. Why? Because, in many cases, it is difficult for a fired employee to afford legal representation, especially good legal representation that will equally match or be superior to that of the employers legal representation - as you so politely put it:"ERAC has deep pockets." So I believe this is where you argument falls apart. It is because a company, such as ERAC, has deep pockets that the company would be more likely to fire the employee and risk a law suit than continue having that employee be an "expense". The company simply has a better chance of firing them and nothing happening than continuing the employees tenure and lose money. And HR would go along with the ride, following suit with what the company wants - not being a "champion" of employee rights!

I am not saying that ERAC openly engages in this practice, though I don't doubt they do as I know this practice is used in other large companies. But you can't tell me that ERAC is a sweet little angel championing the rights of its workers. They are far from it!!

I'm not so sure ERAC's HR is there to "protect the employees"....I think they are there to "document everything" so ERAC "doesn't get sued"...

[Core767]

HR simply does what it is instructed to do by the head of the company, and if someone in HR objected then the hammer from above would simply come down hard on that individual. Intimidation is a common practice to keep employee's mouths shut if something shady is going on in that company. For bleedgreen to suggest that HR is some sort of checks and balances mechanism in a company that is for the benefit of employees is just absurd. After all, bleedgreen said it best and completely obliterated the rest of his/her argument by saying "Human resources exists to protect the company". But protect the company from whom? Itself? Ha! I think not! HR exists to protect the company from outside forces that are there waiting to pounce on it. In other words, when shit hits the fan HR is there to help circle the wagons - not be a mother telling its son "you've been a naughty boy" - but rather sit there and say "Not me! I didn't do it! I don't know what you possibly could be talking about!"

Okay I am done ranting now.