Because you sound like an idiot that didn't read the article and is knee jerk reacting and going on a soap box rant. You disagreeing with the outcome of something is not the same as it being illegal. Also fuck yourself, I'm an atheist. Learn to differentiate fact and opinion jackass.
BrainisfineIthink
joined 2 years ago
This is not a legal passage.
The entire article is about how it was upheld in court so...
I knew I recognized that shade of sadness...er...brown.
I read the article and summarized it. You should try it, you'd sound like less of an asshole. You disagree, that's wonderful. Nobody is interested in your rant about it.
As I said, I agree completely. But the teacher was hired into that environment and knowingly signed a puritanesque ethics clause and broke it. That's why the case was upheld ultimately.
I agree and I'm not saying it makes sense to rationale people but objectively in this case, the optics hold water. This is a fundamentalist Catholic school with nuns. The teacher was unmarried and was also pregnant. The optics of an unwed pregnant teacher, teaching kids whose parents put them in a Fundy school where pre-marital sex is an explicit no-no does put the staff in a very awkward position.
There you go, said better/more clearly.
Hate the Catholic Church (I do) or religion as a whole (I also do), but per the article:
St. Theresa School argued Crisitello’s pregnancy violated the terms of her employment agreement, which required “employees to adhere to the teachings of the Catholic Church and refrain from premarital sex,” court documents say.
Agree or disagree, that all fine, but the exact reason for termination is verbatim in her contract which she signed well ahead of being fired. Is it prudish, archaic, and nonsensical? Yes. But did she sign a contract saying she wouldn't do that and then get fired for doing that thing? Also yes.
I'd this in the victor valley (CA) by any chance?
It may actually be better to set your AC to a highish temp like 81-82 so that it keeps it at that level without running non stop. If the house is 89-90 it takes a very long time and uses a great deal of energy to cool the air down. Maintaining a tolerable temperature can actually help conserve energy in many cases. Obviously you do you and all systems are different but could be worth trying!
I am on team work from home personally, but the reality is we will have to compromise a bit, and I think a hybrid environment is where the sweet spot is. I still work remote about 90% of the time, but realistically I think 60-80% remote, 20-40% in office is ideal and tenable for just about every work type where remote work is feasible.
There is benefit to being in person with your colleagues, there is benefit to having a centralized area for congregating, meeting with outside stakeholders, etc. However, there is absolutely no reason to be in the office all day every day. It makes no sense. The bulk of employees spend AT LEAST 50% (rank and file probably closer to 85-90%?) of their time working alone, by themselves. Let them do that wherever the fuck they want. If the work is getting done, leave them the fuck alone and let them work in their PJs or on their couch or whatever.
A hybrid environment also keeps your work force local and prevents us all from being outsourced. If we all insist on working remote full time then there is absolutely no reason for employers not to offer our jobs to someone living somewhere that's cheaper to live. Sure, we could correct over time and move to a lower cost of living place to compete, but is that really what you want? Do you want to leave your home, friends, family, etc just to chase the job you already have solely because they won't pay you what they already do to stay where you are? If you own a home do you want the value to tank as demand plummets? If your rent is cheap do you want it to skyrocket because displaced remote workers are flooding your town in a rush to capitalize?
I'm in Cancun and my hotel charges $35 for sunscreen. Extortion happens in tourist spots, everywhere, always.