White Lights Corners Of My Lcd Tv

4.3. Panky classics - The intercontrat

intercontrat The period is the period between two successive missions, when they are disjoint, and may be due to a weakness in the heat of trading, poor conditions, or misfortune (for BP) stupidly. Anyway, the benefits can be found without the possibility of making money in the BOP, while still paying (only gross wages without reimbursement flat fee), and a reminder that it costs to BP about twice the net salary he receives. The BP did not at all interested in letting very long in this situation ...

As I detailed above, several schools are possible:

• The best are those that allow the benefits to pass training in keeping with his profile to rise skills, or find him a job within the BP which is consistent with its prerequisite skills. The proper
• leave the benefits alone at home, from the moment it guarantees an availability of 24 at headquarters. The
• nazes require the benefits coming to the headquarters of BP without any work to provide, or providing a false substitute lower skilled jobs and idiotic like "make a copy and paste data from a. doc in a file. xls. The moldy
• require the benefits of coming to the headquarters of BP to seek his next mission. If the benefits actually performs this task, this means that the business which it depends (and which receives a certain amount each month when the benefits is placed with an SE) was served absolutely worthless and that its value is zero. Only if the benefits are poorly paid, it is precisely because of the cost structure of BP, which the salary is not foreign trade. Its parasitic status is then clearly demonstrated.

Now, to return to the topic that fascinates us, the interests of BP is inversely proportional to the length of a intercontrat benefits, it will seek to minimize costs up, often at the expense of ethics and benefits. Here are possible steps in this search optimization. Some BP (few) stop at Step 1, the only legal step, others do not hesitate to go at the end. When is benefits, answer "no" consistently from the second stage. These steps are based on real events that I have been repeatedly reported different BP and guarantee their relatively widespread:

Attention, information of the utmost importance!

1. The BP lays the RTT employers. This step RTT is understandable because the employers actually belong to the employer.
2. The BP asks the benefits of putting all its employees RTT. This step is the first evidence that allows you to ask questions about the morality of BP.
3. The benefits of BP application to ask for holiday pay. [4] Both benefits when sold to a customer, the benefits have no idea of the financial contribution it generates in the BOP. Benefits is provided when intercontrat, BP explains just how it is now in danger, and that the slightest thing to do to preserve the relationship trust with the BP is to ask some paid leave, if not all. For a long time, I thought this solution was the final step before the breach of contract by BP. I was wrong, because some BP (fortunately this is not systematic), invented a new concept: The
4. BP asks the benefits of asking leave without pay. [4] BP These may be those who require the benefits to come to headquarters to pick up their next mission. Summarize the few benefits of BP following an ethic: The trade missions to seek the benefits of a transparent manner, and when the benefits is intercontrat, He expects the next mission while continuing to be paid. Of course, none of this is free, and that is why the benefits are paid below its market value, to take advantage of these "benefits". Now, if the benefits of BP application to ask leave without pay, in addition to asking him to get his next mission intercontrat, there is one more added value to this BP. Zero. All that the BP "contributes" to the BP, as a counterpart to these benefits, remains in the pockets of the final BP. This step is one that characterizes the worst meat traders.

Step Joker! The BP threat to transfer the benefits for gross misconduct if the benefits refuses an amicable separation. This is the classic bluff , which can happen after any step above. The response from the benefits should not be systematically. The situation is not obvious, I agree, but keep in mind that while the benefits does not irregular vis-à-vis the BP (or hitting a commercial eating Director) It does not really risk much. Anyway, arrived at this stage, the benefits must say that BP is truly dishonest and that the leave would not be a bad thing. With nothing to lose, the benefits will be more at ease with pressure surges of BP. Small additional indication: By having to lay off by BP, the benefits receiving compensation for dismissal, which is not the case if amicable separation.

Thus, in this situation and following these tips, two conclusions:

Dismissal for gross negligence in the case where the benefits would still turn a dirty no good reason, a small tower Prud'homme men and this will be Jackpot! Meanwhile, the benefits will not lose its rights with assedic, contrary to what some may think or believe intentionally.

No dismissal: The benefits continue as before, and BP goes for what it really is, an unscrupulous parasite.

As they say between sub-humans, the BP drops the mask when the benefits is intercontrat. If he who comes in BP is ready to fight tooth and nail to keep what is his by right, then the following advice may be unnecessary. For others: Always try to discuss with Presta BP before signing the contract, ask them what happens in intercontrat, and which step mentioned above stops the BP. If you're already on BP, do not let up the pressure, only the first step is legal so nothing ever force you to move to the next step. Know it and defend it!