Employee Denied Promotion Quotes

In 2012, a series of studies compared men in more "modern" marriages (whose wives worked outside the home full-time) to men in more "traditional" marriages (whose wives worked at home). The researchers wanted to determine if a man's home arrangement affected his professional behavior. It did. Compared to men in modern marriages, men in more traditional marriages viewed the presence of women in the workforce less favorably. They also denied promotions to qualified female employees more often and were more likely to think that companies with a higher percentage of female employees ran less smoothly. The researchers speculated that men in traditional marriages are not overtly hostile toward women but instead are "benevolent sexists" ---holding positive yet outdated views about women (another term I have heard is "nice guy misogynists").

The judges believed Uber and Lyft to be more powerful than they were willing to admit, but they also conceded that the companies did not have the same power over employees as an old-economy employer like Walmart. “The jury in this case will be handed a square peg and asked to choose between two round holes,” Judge Chhabria wrote. Judge Chen, meanwhile, wondered whether Uber, despite a claim of impotence at the center of the network, exerted a kind of invisible power over drivers that might give them a case. In order to define this new power, he decided to turn where few judges do: the late French philosopher Michel Foucault. In a remarkable passage, Judge Chen compared Uber’s power to that of the guards at the center of the Panopticon, which Foucault famously analyzed in Discipline and Punish. The Panopticon was a design for a circular prison building dreamed up in the eighteenth century by the philosopher Jeremy Bentham. The idea was to empower a solitary guard in the center of the building to watch over a large number of inmates, not because he was actually able to see them all at once, but because the design kept any prisoner from knowing who was being observed at any given moment. Foucault analyzed the nature and working of power in the Panopticon, and the judge found it analogous to Uber’s. He quoted a line about the “state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power.” The judge was suggesting that the various ways in which Uber monitored, tracked, controlled, and gave feedback on the service of its drivers amounted to the “functioning of power,” even if the familiar trappings of power—ownership of assets, control over an employee’s time—were missing. The drivers weren’t like factory workers employed and regimented by a plant, yet they weren’t independent contractors who could do whatever they pleased. They could be fired for small infractions. That is power. It can be disturbing that the most influential emerging power center of our age is in the habit of denying its power, and therefore of promoting a vision of change that changes nothing meaningful while enriching itself. Its posture is not entirely cynical, though. The technology world has long maintained that the tools it creates are inherently leveling and will serve to collapse power divides rather than widen them.

THE LEWINSKY PROCEDURE: A STRATEGY GUIDE FOR MINIMIZING POLITICAL SCANDAL Deny -The necessary first stage, where you question the accuracy of the facts. It will take time for all the scandalous details to come out, and if you’re careful or lucky, they may never come out. Deny everything until the point that the facts against you can be substantiated. Delay -Take every action possible to stall, postpone, impede, procrastinate, and filibuster. The longer the time between the initial news of the scandal and the resolution of the scandal, the better. Diminish -Once the facts against you have been substantiated, either minimize the nature of the scandal or its impact against you. “At this point, what difference does it make?” Debunk -Have a helpful news organization or advocacy group develop a useful counter-narrative that explains away the scandal or contradicts the facts or generally does something to get progressives back on your side. “Explanatory journalism” is a great help here. Distract -Change the conversation by talking about something else. It doesn’t matter what that might be, because there’s always something else more important, even if it’s reminding people to drink more water. Suggest that the scandal itself is a distraction from the real issues. Deflect -When in doubt, blame the Republicans. All administrative failures can be blamed on the failures of the prior administration. All political failures can be blamed on Republican legislation or Republican intransigence in not passing progressive legislation which would have fixed the problem. All personal failures can be excused by either bringing up the example of a Republican who did something similar, or by pointing out that whatever was done wasn’t as bad as serving divorce papers on your wife when she’s in the hospital with cancer, or invading Iraq. Divide -Point out that the scandal is being driven by the most extreme Republicans, and that moderates aren’t to blame. This won’t help you with moderates that much, but it will give the moderates another reason not to like the extremists, and vice versa, and this can only be positive. Deploy -Get friends and allies to talk about your positive virtues in public, without reference to the scandal. If the scandal comes up, have them complain about the politics of personal destruction. Demonize -Attribute malign intentions to the conservatives trying to promote the scandal. This approach should also include special prosecutors, judges, and anyone else who is involved in the scandal to one degree or another. Defenestrate -When necessary, shove someone under the bus. Try not to make this a habit, or you won’t have anyone around to deploy. The target for defenestration can be small (rogue employees in the Cincinnati regional office) or large (Cabinet secretary) but it needs to be someone who won’t scream overly much as they sail out the window. ❄ ❄ ❄

☎️[A]+1-(866)-(471)-(6821)[A] Can you transfer a ticket to another person on Delta?{{^TrAnSfEr^~TiCkEt^}} ☎️[A]+1-(866)-(471)-(6821)[A] ☎️[A]+1-(866)-(471)-(6821)[A] Travelers often ask can you transfer a ticket to another person on Delta because plans change and sometimes one passenger cannot make the trip while another would like to use the booking ☎️[A]+1-(866)-(471)-(6821)[A] ☎️[A]+1-(866)-(471)-(6821)[A] Delta Airlines does not permit transferring tickets to a completely different person because the name on the reservation must always match government issued identification documents ☎️[A]+1-(866)-(471)-(6821)[A] ☎️[A]+1-(866)-(471)-(6821)[A] This strict rule exists to comply with aviation security standards and prevent fraud since airline authorities require accurate passenger identification at all stages of travel ☎️[A]+1-(866)-(471)-(6821)[A] ☎️[A]+1-(866)-(471)-(6821)[A] While full transfers are not possible Delta does allow certain corrections such as fixing misspellings or adjusting names due to legal changes like marriage or divorce ☎️[A]+1-(866)-(471)-(6821)[A] ☎️[A]+1-(866)-(471)-(6821)[A] If you need to adjust a small typo in your first or last name you can contact Delta directly online or through their service hotline where agents review and correct ticket details ☎️[A]+1-(866)-(471)-(6821)[A] ☎️[A]+1-(866)-(471)-(6821)[A] In cases where a passenger has legally changed their name proper documentation such as court orders or marriage certificates will be required before Delta can update the ticket ☎️[A]+1-(866)-(471)-(6821)[A] ☎️[A]+1-(866)-(471)-(6821)[A] Many passengers assume transferring tickets might be similar to reselling event passes but airlines including Delta prohibit this to keep identity verification reliable ☎️[A]+1-(866)-(471)-(6821)[A] ☎️[A]+1-(866)-(471)-(6821)[A] If a traveler cannot use their flight they may instead cancel the booking within Delta’s rules and then a new ticket can be purchased separately under the new traveler’s name ☎️[A]+1-(866)-(471)-(6821)[A] ☎️[A]+1-(866)-(471)-(6821)[A] Delta offers a 24 hour cancellation window where you can cancel a ticket and rebook under the correct name without penalty which is useful when plans change fast ☎️[A]+1-(866)-(471)-(6821)[A] ☎️[A]+1-(866)-(471)-(6821)[A] After the initial cancellation period changes may come with fees or fare differences but still tickets cannot be reassigned to a completely different individual ☎️[A]+1-(866)-(471)-(6821)[A] ☎️[A]+1-(866)-(471)-(6821)[A] For families and groups it is important to double check passenger names before confirming bookings to avoid issues because Delta strictly enforces name matching rules ☎️[A]+1-(866)-(471)-(6821)[A] ☎️[A]+1-(866)-(471)-(6821)[A] Corporate travelers often face urgent changes but even for business bookings Delta maintains the same rule tickets cannot be switched between employees once issued ☎️[A]+1-(866)-(471)-(6821)[A] ☎️[A]+1-(866)-(471)-(6821)[A] In situations where an employee cannot travel the company must cancel the original ticket and buy a new one for another worker following Delta’s purchase policies ☎️[A]+1-(866)-(471)-(6821)[A] ☎️[A]+1-(866)-(471)-(6821)[A] Many low cost or promotional fares are especially restrictive meaning no changes beyond spelling corrections are permitted so careful booking is very important ☎️[A]+1-(866)-(471)-(6821)[A] ☎️[A]+1-(866)-(471)-(6821)[A] SkyMiles loyalty members are encouraged to maintain updated profiles since this helps Delta automatically align names correctly with official identification records ☎️[A]+1-(866)-(471)-(6821)[A] ☎️[A]+1-(866)-(471)-(6821)[A] International flights add more strictness because border authorities will deny boarding if ticket names do not perfectly match passport names even minor errors cause issues ☎️[A]+1-(866)-(471)-(6821)[A] ☎️[A]+1-(866)-(471)-(6821)[A] The safest

After Armistice Day, the women of the U.S. Army Signal Corps were among the last to depart Europe, for they were needed to handle calls and translations throughout the peace conference. Months after the Treaty of Versailles was signed, they managed telephone communications for the Army of Occupation and the repatriation of nearly two million officers, soldiers, and civilian employees. In the two years that the women served, they connected more than twenty-six million calls and contributed immeasurably to the Allied victory in the Great War. Upon their return to the United States, the switchboard soldiers, proud of their service and eager to resume their peacetime lives, applied for veterans’ benefits and sought to join veterans’ groups. When asked to produce their discharge papers, the women contacted the War Department, only to be informed that they were not veterans. Although they had worn uniforms and military insignia, had saluted superior officers, had served in combat settings, and had not been free to resign their jobs at will as civilians could, the government insisted that they had never been more than paid civilian employees serving under contract. All of the women had sworn military oaths to serve their country as members of the U.S. Army Signal Corps, some of them multiple times as they moved through the application process or were promoted during the war. Not one of them had signed an employment contract. Shocked and heartbroken, the women realized that the nation they had served with such distinction now denied that they had ever been soldiers. They did not qualify to receive honorable discharges. They were not eligible for medical benefits, medals, or bonuses. They could not march in Memorial Day parades or join their local chapters of the VFW. They could not call themselves veterans. Before Inez Crittenden sailed for France, she had purchased war risk insurance, a transaction witnessed by a second lieutenant in the Signal Corps. In May 1919, a family member applied to collect on the policy, but a claims officer for the U.S. Treasury decreed that Crittenden had never actually been a member of the military, rendering the policy null and void.