Mahone

Even if there was proof of working (e.g. CCTV footage), if they didn't submit these hours to their employer at the appropriate time using the official channels, in my opinion the employee shouldn't have any legal leg to stand on at all.

Do you mind going into detail regarding methods of discouraging the practice? It seems a very odd concept to me, that if an employee works overtime that hasn't been preauthorised they can demand payment for it - seems to be too many flaws that can be exploited.

Interesting. As I've not worked in the USA yet, I've not seen this method of employment in practise before. As an employer is legally required to pay non-exempt employees for each hour they work, the employee must be required to log these hours for audit purposes and so the employer knows what to pay them? - If the above is true, and they don't log all the hours they work (implied in the op), would it stand up in court if they sued the company two years later for payment? It's not possible for an employer to know whether their employees are working above the hours they submit on paper. - How does an employer stop a non-exempt employee working high amounts of hours per week unnecessarily?

Salary. Both salary and hourly jobs often have a contract that includes the amount of hours that should be worked per week though. To my knowledge, any hours that are worked above that contract amount that the employee expects payment for, need to be requested or authorised by the employer as paid overtime. If the contract doesn't have a set amount of hours, then this could have implications.

Yes. It's not paid overtime work.

Out of curiosity, under what employment law? I'm pretty sure that in the UK, the employer has to explicitly request that the employee work outside of his/her contract hours for paid overtime to be a legal requirement - not having enough time to do the requested work within your contract hours is a different issue and comes under different employment law. I wasn't aware that the US was any different, so I'm curious. As for the original question, I regularly work overtime without informing my manager or requesting overtime pay - I've always seen it as something that comes with the field (I work in IT and servers and network infrastructure usually neglect to inform you in advance of when they're going to fail unfortunately). In my eyes, this is voluntary work done for the benefit of the organisation, and even more so, for my own peace of mind and sanity. I don't think my employer would be concerned about any legal implications.

Honestly, she doesn't. She grew up in Florida, so the famous dismal English weather (portrayed very well in almost every James Bond movie) doesn't do her much good when she is accustomed to heat and sunshine. She has given me until next Christmas to finish up with my job before we move to Florida.

My wife threatened to move to England if Obama won. The difference between every other republican and her is that around four days after the election result was apparent, she was midway over the atlantic.

Your assessment of my generalisation is also based on personal experience, which doesn't mean any more than mine did. It's also worth considering that you may not define something as fear if its all you've ever known. Based solely on my personal experience only, I would say that those that I know in the USA live in what I would define as fear.

I live in the UK but have family in both the UK and USA. The difference in opinion between the two populations as a whole regarding guns is quite astounding - whether that opinion is based on what they are used to within their respective societies or vice versa, I'm not sure. People as a whole fear change. What I do know based from personal experience only of the two societies is this: In general, people in the US appear to live in fear on a day to day basis, with constant preparation for the worst scenario. This fear took me by surprise initially, but I've come to expect it now. In the UK, people generally feel safe in their own homes and schools without what they would consider extreme defensive measures in place, and not without reason either. A common argument is that criminals aren't exactly going to lay down their arms because of a change in law. Maybe that would be the case in the US, as has correctly been pointed out that guns are so embedded in society that they'd remain easily accessible for many generations to come. In the UK however, guns are so difficult to get hold of that unless you were involved in serious organised crime, it's unlikely you'd manage to get hold of one before the police were made aware of you - the percentage of gun related homicides in the UK are considerably less than in the USA.

It's great in theory, but on some flights there is only one per day, or even per week for you to choose from. The amount of time between connecting flights is also very often out of our control. In my case, I had five hours between flights (the max I could have), and the delay time was just under five hours. I was hoping the connecting flight would also be delayed, but it was sadly not the case lol.

Two christmases ago, I flew from Birmingham, UK to Florida, via Frankfurt, Germany to see my (now) wife. Snow at the Frankfurt side meant the initial leg of my journey was delayed, and I missed my connecting flight to Florida by 5 minutes. The next flight to Florida was in 24 hours time, all my luggage was inaccessible and the queues to all service desks to find what what had happened and what I needed to do were about 3 hours long. I eventually ended up in a hotel a few miles away from the airport several hours later (albeit without my luggage) where I managed to shower and get some sleep before heading off to the airport early the next morning to catch the next flight. Getting off an eight hour flight with your fiance waiting at the airport is already bad enough from a hygiene perspective, but combine that with wearing the same clothes two days in a row, no toothbrush, toothpaste, razor, deodorant etc (they were all in my luggage) just made it 10 times worse. Luckily I managed to sneakily use one of the "try me" aftershaves they sell in the airport at frankfurt . She still married me eventually, so it can't have been that bad

If you look at it from a extremely simplistic point of view, maybe. The world is more complex than that however. For starters, it is not mandatory. If the family does chose that path, there is probably a very legitimate reason for it. A single mother/father for instance, has to work to support her/his child. Secondly, because it's not mandatory, it doesn't have to be every day - this can be up to the discretion of the family depending on circumstances. Thirdly, I think "daily formal school" doesn't describe nursery very well. I used to maintain the servers at one primary school that had a nursery (not all schools have one) - it was completely segregated off from the rest of the school, had an independent entrance, different opening and closing times to the rest of the school and the activities were really no different to that of the nursery in church. I really fail to understand how any of this is "absurd" or "enraging"?

I can't tell you anything about the Australian education system, but having been through the English education system myself, I can tell you: - We do use the phrase 'Kindergarten', with local variations - Primary school is 7 years (there is an additional non-mandatory year at the age of 3 which could make it 8) - Secondary school (the mandatory part of it) is 5 years. There is an additional two years that is actually sixth form college and is not mandatory.

It asks you to chose a word which you believe is closest to the meaning of the word in question, not necessarily a word that defines it. These questions haven't originated from the author of this survey. I can find them in multiple academic papers including one from this lady: John A. Logan College, Dr. Jane Bryant’s Biography entitled "American Government Across Time, Space, and Location". I take it you've never heard of Dr Freddy Patel (just a random example)? He was a medical doctor of equal/elevated standing in the community too Ian Tomlinson: Pathologist who made scores of errors during botched post-mortem on the newspaper vendor is struck off | Mail Online. To trust professionals without question would, in my opinion, be a mistake. Whilst it was said on this thread that the survey was targeted towards American LDS, the survey itself does not, so may actually be intended for LDS in multiple countries? The number 14 may just be an average meaning mandatory state education, as it's really what happens after that, that is relevant, in my opinion.

Happy to help :)

Look at the system log in computer management. It definitely appears to be a HDD issue, but the system log will give some more detailed information.

I don't care much for it. I only bother to watch (and even then, halfheartedly) international games. Aside from my lack of interest in it, being LDS and therefore not drinking alcohol doesn't help - football is a social game and in the UK, social usually means drinking alcohol with your friends (hence why they play football on the TV screens at nearly all the pubs across the UK)

It's a little unfair to judge several entire countries based on on a single decision by one council. The reason this has made the media is because political membership is not usually considered relevant when assigning children to foster parents. There is an investigation to be conducted, and it will probably be reversed. It's also worth bearing in mind that these are foster parents, not adoptive parents. Foster children rarely stay with one set of foster parents for any great length of time. It's intended to be temporary, so them being taken away at short notice isn't entirely unexpected, regardless of reasons.

The day after the results of the election as I walked into the office at work, my first statement was that if facebooks daily backups are incremental, the biggest change in the log for that day would be the friend relationship database. It really was quite amusing reading the various posts about reduced friend counts.

Is it just the user interface that you don't like? No-one likes big changes from what they are used to, and if you've been using XP for the last 11 years, it is a big change. I got irritated at first, especially trying to find common tools in the control panel that had been relocated or renamed etc. Give it time. I now get annoyed whenever I use XP. Two mistakes I keep making are trying to copy and paste via remote desktop and trying to resize the windows to 50% of the horizontal by dragging to the edge of the screen when using XP - catches me out every time. As for dumbing it down, why not? Why make something more complex than it has to be? All they have done is make the common tasks much more simple through an improved user interface, whilst still allowing for more advanced tasks in the background.

My apologies. I was referring to the literal definition of staff, as in, everyone employed by an organisation. In the UK, we differentiate between the two by putting them into 'teaching staff' and 'support staff' categories, which I gather is the equivalent of 'faculty' and 'staff' over there? Either way, my point still stands. All staff, whether teaching or not, should be trained on any new operating systems, as it is a major change to the user interface. You should probably raise this as an issue because it can stifle productivity.

Out of curiosity, why? From my perspective, all useful features of outlook that don't come as standard in most other mail clients require an exchange server. Now outlook coupled with exchange - that's nice :)

In most establishments, they usually do training before hand on the systems, and give the staff plenty of notice before the upgrade takes place as standard - if they don't, then there is a serious flaw there that needs resolving. It's also common for larger establishments to upgrade much later than most home users have, which gives them time to get used to it at home before having to use it at work. In an educational environment however, there is a argument for upgrading sooner than most - little point in teaching students how to use out of date software. Probably less in spite of it being a large corporation, and more -because- it's a large corporation. Stick to what you know works in that environment, until you're absolutely forced to upgrade, or the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages - less chance of things going wrong and money being lost. Yes, there are flaws to this method of working, but it has saved a lot of peoples skin in the past

To be honest, windows 8 is a pain for system administrators, especially those with large networks. We've only just got everything working on windows 7, and now have windows 8 to contend with - I much preferred the gap between XP and vista as it gave everything time to stabilize before moving onto the next OS.