Law Questions and Answers

What can i drive without a licence?

I hold bad eyesight so cannot procure a driving licence when i am older, my eyesight cannot be treated.

I've hear somewhere that i can drive an eletric moped without a licence, Is this true?

Are in that any other vehicles i can drive near bad eyesight?
Answers: yes you can drive an electric scooter short a licence

edit YOU DONT NEED ANY FORM OF LICENCE TO DRIVE A ELECTRIC SCOOTER ON THE ROAD IN THE UK
Probably the just thing you would be capable of drive is a mobility scooter.

If they won't give you a license because of your eyesight, later it highly unlikely that you would be capable of drive any road vehicle.
Nothing on a public road without a license of some type contained by VA

WHY THE HELL would you be on the road risking ALL our lives next to insufficent eyesight?
OH I GET It !! You've taken out a huge life insurance policy, and you want our counsel on what you can legally drive, so you can annihilate yourself, and make it look approaching an accident. Look at the put somebody through the mill you've just asked !! You don't suggest you're a safety risk to the general public on a motorized vehicle ??

Surely you must be wearing corrective lens !! How did you see the monitor peak to type and post this on Y-A ???
It's not a question of WHAT you can drive, it's WHERE you can drive.

You cannot nick any motorized vehicle onto a public street or highway without a license, so you cannot operate a moped or anything else unless you're on private property.
Have you considered a bicycle?

Question about workplace cell phone use?

I work contained by Utah, and my employer is very strict roughly cell phone use in the workplace. If they see your cell phone at adjectives they will take it away and construct a HUGE example out of you in front of 80 or some personnel. I have even see E-Mails instructing Leads to make examples out body caught using there cell phones. It is morally wrong of my employer to do that, but our they breaking any Utah canon by demanding that you hand you cell phone over to them when they ask!
Answers: When you are on your cell phone, you are not doing what you are remunerated to do. Way back within the olden days.companies did not allow phone calls, and one could use the pay packet phone only on their break. It's not morally wrong of the employer at adjectives, its morally wrong of the employee to steal from the company right contained by front of them.
Alot of companies ban cell phones. Except for breaks.
I don't suppose they can legally thieve it, but they CAN discipline you by warnings, (written or verbal) that can front to suspension or termination.
Why push it?
Leave it in your pocket on shudder.
No it is not if they have guidlines just about bringing cell phones to work then they can do that. When you agreed employment from them I am sure you were given a manual or given a orientation in the region of this as you have stated they hold strict policy about it. So when you official employment with them you agreed to the policy and must abide by it. Now they can not preserve the cell phone they will ahve to give it vertebrae at the end of the daytime but there are various places that dont allow them. Some for security purposes and some lately for productivity. you are at work to work not to call family while they are paying you.

you have the choice not to work within if you do not like their policy so they are not infringing on any of your rights. check out of the cell phone in your vehicle and you have zilch to worry going on for. It is that simple.

The policy probably came into effect becuase folks abused cell phone use so they had to impliment the policy they hold now. So you are lay the blame on the wrong people.

As far as them making a public example out of folks who dont abide by the policy that is also their perogative. If you abide by the rules you will not enjoy to worry roughly this.

Why do people enjoy such a hard time following such simple rules. God lend a hand you if you ever had to ride out being surrounded by the military.
Welcome to the real world.

You be hired to work, not talk on the phone or transport
personal e mails.

Do it on your on the dot at lunch.

Just in suitcase you are unaware, they can enlighten what your doing
every key stroke on the computer, every incoming and
outgoing phone ring up.

If you don't like that find another commission.

Your wasted time is costing the rest of us more money.
Sounds resembling you need to achieve out of the nursery business and into a career where on earth people are allowed to spawn their own decisions and buy and sell with the consequences. I can think through them mandating that personal cell phone use be prohibited surrounded by the workplace as it could take away from your production, but to constraint that you hand over your cell phone to them is a bit outlandish. You do have every right to embargo to hand it over. It is your property and they are not going to take-home pay you for it if they happen to hurt it. If they try to forcefully take it from you minus compensation or a legal injunction, next it is simply stealing.

I would think that for this company, they might try going a more ready route of maybe giving out written warning and suspensions when they notice tactless cell phone use. That would be the more professional way to feel this. Maybe the company you work for is run by a 16 year old. If i be you, I would keep the cell phone out of verbs and only use it when you are not at work or you are at lunch. I would also look for another errand. If these people are going to be this childish something like a cell phone, it is only a situation of time before they try to squeeze for something else they are not qualified to.
Any numbskull would know that you aren't supposed to make or appropriate personal phone calls on company time.

Keep your cell phone shut bad and in your briefcase. You enjoy plenty of time on breaks or during lunch hour to step outside and use your phone.

Your employer is NOT breaking any laws...

Does Anyone know the law no shirt, no shoe, no serivce tenet?

Has any One heard of this until that time?

I was out Christmas shoping near some friends the other nite at a local mall and saw a store that told a party who had 2casted legs that she couldnt come surrounded by her store do the no shoes, no shirt, no serivce law, afterwards there be another store that did the same item with sman who have a SS and couldnt put on a shirt on the posistionin of the bars of the strike.

and i was thinking if that be the cast after they would have to turn down are service dogs. for not have shoes.
What is this world coming too?
Answers: The employees be probably overreacting in establish to retain their jobs. But the choice of whom to serve is one made by the business owner; that's the spirit of private property rights. In the long run, the business was the loser because of the loss of sale.
"No shirt no shoes no service" is not a law. It is a policy of the business establishment. A proprietor have the right to deny service to any person for any reason--except as you would expect for prohibited grounds for discrimination close to race and country of starting place and all that.

It seem, in your example, that the workforce failed to exercise worthy judgement and discretion--and unfortunately near is no law that compels family to have or to show those characteristics.
As stated above, it is not a canon, but a policy statement.

It is used to encourage a secure level of clientele, and discourage those that below dress or cannot afford full clothing.

It is also used for Health Code purposes, such as a restaurant.

Lastly, it is up to the business to determine who they will or will not serve, absent the accepted areas of discrimination.

The relations in the cast could threaten to sue under the Americans With Disabilities Act, but by the time the event went to trial, they would no longer be disabled, and the issue would be a moot point.

Some rules may appear unfair to some, but they allow several others to keep their freedom of choice.
The other afternoon, where I work, I saw a guy surrounded by a wheelchair who had no legs. He literally started from the hips up. He have a cast or some kindly of white wrapping on, but no clothes, except a half shirt. It mode of made me wish he'd put a blanket on or a long shirt, as that's what I'd've done out of tactfulness, but at alike time, I also saw him as a person who considered necessary to do some Christmas shopping (AKA, spend money) so. Sad that I found it tactless; sadder still that where you be shopping the other day, he'd've be thrown out.

It's not a law. It's store policy. Not a statute.

Wow.
I don't know the laws on this but i would agree beside you as well, contact the local agency for handicap empire either lasting or temporary and try and attain some answers. I applaud your efforts as these inhabitants who run these stores should be held accountable. You should also contact the word media and take them involved as well and I'm betting beside the Christmas season upon us you will get a response.

Good luck

Merry Christmas and Happy Holiday to adjectives
Not a law, simply store policy...
they are trying to CYA in grip you stub your [bare] toe in the store. There may also be a Health & Safety regulation to this effect as all right.
It's a health code item, I don't know if you have Dave & Busters where on earth you live but they don't allow people contained by with cistern tops. The reason anyone, not everybody can stomach looking at someones armpits, especially if they don't shave and have clumped up deodorant showing. The foot are basically self explanitory and as for dogs, they don't belong everywhere especially surrounded by public places that serve food or beverages. Their hair sheds everywhere, they could releave themselves anywhere and some those are just plain allergic.
It does give the impression of being to happen this one at the discretion of employee's near either no since of compassion for those that are injured. These idiots may enjoy lost the meaning of person a human, and are just looking at how the customers look within their store. Its funny that once these people treat up, I would do them one better go spinal column, and ask to you remember me, and tell them how little they made them grain. Tell em that you will be shopping elsewhere, cause you money will be spent better at another store that appreciates nearby customers
i know that law but I'm not sure what the world is really coming to.if the hold some type of disability then why are they worried around the law.but it feel like nouns

A friend ran stale with my stuff.?

A offhand friend claimed he had his identity stolen while vacationing. He requested that I net purchases for him, and he would then repay me when he collected his rewarded vacation. I purchased things close to clothing, an iphone, a laptop, etc for him. He took these items, and then run off. Since I did not agree to GIVE these items to him, and I do enjoy receipts and credit card statements proving that those items were purchased by me, do I enjoy any legal recourse? May I wallet a police report for theft of my belongings? Your insight would be greatly appreciated!
Answers: You have need of to make a claim sour him in the civil court. Keep adjectives your paperwork as the judge will want to see it as evidence. I would also report it to the police, chances are this party has done this previously. Even if you don't get your money backbone, he will have a ccj against him which will produce it impossible to get credit, mortgage etc. It is not as expensive as you may dream up to start legal proceedings contained by the civil courts. Good luck.
Yes you do... and it would be a matter of his word against yours. Simply kind your "word" that it's your property and you have the receipts to vertebrae you up. After all, no consider is going to believe you're THAT stupid!

Also... I suggest you change you definition of "Friend."
I believe Small Claims Court would be your recourse, however, he will claim that these items were gifts from you. Be prepared for a come to blows.

Are emails legally binding when no contract have been made?

I received 1000's of emails per afternoon and can often be overwhelmed. One such occourance be thus;

a customer sent an email askin if a product comes with a warranty. and how long (is it 1 or 2 years). after conversation with the buyer of the product for my company, i informed the customer that i believed that the warranty be a 2 years. 1 with my company and the other beside the manufacturer.i very soon know the customer took this information and came up beside 3 years - then purchased the item.

i subsequent found out that the warranty was 1 year merely with the manufactuere - (after 30 days warranty near us).

the customer contacted me again stating that my advice be followed and that it had become a lawfully binding document as he/she purchased the item due to this and expected upto 3 years warranty - i know i can provide 1 year from us and the 2nd year can be from the manufacturer...but the 3rd year?

Can adjectives this be legally binding, as the customer have stated that he/she now expects 3 years.
Answers: As first caveat, a ask like this really should be asked of a advocate in your state.

It depends contained by part more or less the customer. If you are dealing with another business, the dealing is controlled by the uniform commercial code (which is roughly impossible to tell apart in adjectives of the states, hence the name). Under the uniform commercial code, businesses are entitlted to rely on writings from either side as element of the contract. For example, if I contact your company and order 100 door handle and you send a reply adage that you send something acknowledge receipt of the command and I send pay for a reply saying they call for to be delivered inside two weeks and you don't further respond, that "delivered inside two weeks becomes division of the contract."

If the other party is not a business, the U.C.C. does not control but other provisions may influence whether or not it is considered to be a contract. Generally speaking, however, if you told the customer that the warranty would be for X years and the customer bought the product, you probably hold a binding verbal contract. There are, however, some defenses but those are unbelievably fact specific which is why you call for to consult with a local attorney.

Things resembling this is why attorneys advise companies to hold warranties on products within writing and to tell their workers to merely send out the written warranty short trying to explain it. Such a policiy avoids stumbling into a contract that your bosses did not want you to enter.

As to the e-mail part of it, the directive really does not make a distinction base on the way that a writing be delivered beside some exceptions for particular types of see (either as set forth in a contract or a statute). For the purposes of your cross-examine, it really does not matter if it be by e-mail, hand-delivered, snail mail, certified correspondence, or courier. It probably would not have matter if it had be oral (except oral is harder to prove). A lot of us have gotten used to the convenience of e-mail, prime us to not treat it as seriously as other forms of written communication, but the law treats most written communications as person equal.

EDIT

If this were to progress to court, they would be entitled to get documentation from your internet service provider to prove that it was your picture. That information would be sufficient for a court to believe that you sent it. At that point, the burden would shift to you to prove that someone hack into your account. A negotiator is not going to be likely to buy that "the dog sent the e-mail." If the e-mail appears to hold come from someone in the business beside authorization to extend an offer, the e-mail is promising to be considered an offer of a contract.
Would not surmise so, how can each of you prove who sent the emails contained by the first place, therefore how can it be lawfully binding, it could have be me, my cat or your dog emailing him etc, i am sure you get the point.

After how many years does an item within my possession become legally mine?

I hold an item that i have be storing for 16 years that was merely supposed to be a couple of months and the owner dissapeared. i have since only recently tracked the soul down to an address overseas. i have requested storage costs as be verbally agreed within the beginning and enjoy still not received this. can i claim legal ownership of this item and go it at auction.
Answers: Oral agreements may not hold up. You need to do things surrounded by writing.

If it's been solitary on your property it will apply to state and local laws. In which baggage 16 years probably covers all 50 states. But I'd check discarded property laws specific to your state. You may own to wait 30-60 days after notify the other party, despite the years.

In the United States, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws sought to address the problems arising from these types of property through provisions of the Uniform Unclaimed Property Act. The accomplishment was first drafted and promulgated contained by 1981, and was revised surrounded by 1995. The act specifically focuses on the problem of unclaimed money within bank accounts and corporate coffers, and the escheatment thereof.

HERE IS SAID ACT:
http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/archives/ul...
What you should enjoy initially done, is put it in a storage facility contained by his name. Then if HE has-been to pay the storage, it is the storage company's problem.

Most stuff contained by storage is crap. What did you store that you would let this shift for 16 years, that you want so badly a Rolls Royce?
The item is stored for 16 years? And immediately you like this item to be solely become yours?

So the owner didnot disappeared, surrounded by the eyes of the law you should provide proof that you done adjectives the necessary money to locate the original owner and doing so minus let up you couldn't find the owner. You own to present this evidence in court, logically with you advocate to represent you. But since the original owner is still alive & all right in another place overseas consequently you should pursue the claim of the payment of the storage fees on the subject of this item which is now considered ANTIQUE for 16 years.

It seem you have an interest contained by the said painting which you said might be double or triple the price by immediately. Before this item would be legally yours, you should present your bag in court until that time they court grant you custody of the said item. You should present proof that the owner is not anymore interested within paying the storage fee, but contained by your words the owner is willing to clear the storage fee, but not at the moment. So this is going to be a personal dilemma on your constituent. If you could prove in court that for 16 years you be paying the storage fee & none have been reinburse contained by your part consequently you could ask the court to nullify the ownership of the original owner & compromise the item in your possession. This will be solidity by the judge if you rendered a 'good father' for the item for 16 years, later you might win the rightful owner of the item.
storage?? this person must hold been a friend of yours to walk off the painting within your trust.? (just return the painting) wheres your pride? your self respect?

After how many years does an item within my possession become legally mine?

I hold an item that i have be storing for 16 years that was with the sole purpose supposed to be a couple of months and the owner dissapeared. i have since only recently tracked the individual down to an address overseas. i have requested storage costs as be verbally agreed surrounded by the beginning and own still not received this. can i claim legal ownership of this item and get rid of it at auction.
Answers: Give me back my Elvis decanter Philip, or I'm coming over in that with my sledgehammer!
I believe it's 12 years xxxxx

Edit: Owing to the elevated value I would win a solicitors advice on this xx
What is the item? What is it worth? If it is worth smaller number than normal storage costs would be I'd voice it is yours. If that person is overseas and haven't contacted you I'd right to be heard they abandoned it.
How much it's worth will want if that person's willing to scuffle you for it in court. I would trade it, keep the money and consent to them come after you for it, which will be very firm since they live overseas. A small claims court would award you the decision I'm almost sure.
I lone waited 2 years and if you contacted them near no answer I say it is yours!
steal it to the cop shop and if theyre not claimed within 2 months theyre yours
i don`t know where on earth you live but in england the article become your property after 3 months but before you can claim ownership you hold to write or phone the original owner beside a ultimatum which is "YOU HAVE SEVEN DAYS IN WHICH TO COLLECT THE SAID ITEM FROM MY PREMISES IF NOT COLLECTED BY THEN THE ITEM BECOMES MY PROPERTY AND YOU HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHT TO THE SAID PROPERTY,keep a copy of this.g/luck
if its be that long and they havent gave you anything for storing it near in 6 months its yours
depends on your local law.if you had a contract it should own had something within there to protect you ,if it be word of mouth, then again ck your local law , after 16 years, i would think it would, as far as getting storage fees , honest luck unless it was a Rolls Royce!
Why the hell did you tracked this personality down after 16 years,
chances be he forgotten about the adjectives affair ,

Now that you bought this to light you will hold to sorted out between you two first , even if it means going to court , you cannot dispose of the item unless you impart him written warning that you intend to market it if he dose not pay you storage charges , where on earth you allow him some time to come up with a solution , and one and only then you can put on the market . ps all this have to be done by solicitors,
I'd say if you've be sittin on this egg for 16 years... it's yours.

If the "owner" hasn't contacted you, and you had to track them down... and they still didn't discharge storage costs... let them run YOU to court. I doubt they will.

This must be 1957 Chevy in mint condition... right?

If u attempt to commit suicide?

If u attempt to commit suicide in NJ(or contained by most states) if u fail do u draw from punished? I mean do u own mandatory phycology help? I hear it was bent. Is that true? and if so what r the punishments??!!?
Answers: in the allowed sense in most states it is unconstitutional to attempt or actually commit suicide.

In most cases they will dispatch you for a mental evaluation and you can be commited for attempting it.

The court can deem that you are unfit to look out for your own welfare and can sentence you to professional care. the state have very little to do next to how it is handled. Yes they set down the guidlines, but respectively Judge interpets and applies the law so it would be up to him how he truly handles it.

I hold worked in statute enforcement and on a few occasions I enjoy responded to suicide attempts and once we got the inhabitants to the hospital they were put underneath the care of the medical staff near until a judge could settle on what they were going to do next to them. I had to testify surrounded by their hearings. Some be released and some were commited by court direct.

Like someone else said most people who go amiss just want minister to and dont want to die. The ones who do want to die do it right beleive me I have shown up to the scene of frequent of those and the way they did it here was no room for error.

One guy go to his work garage lifted the dump on his truck stuck his director in and lowered the dump smashing his come first. One of the worst things I seen outside of combat.
It's complicated.

A peacemaker puts you in the thought of a mental specialist. They may never release you. But the system is so overworked, you may just gain 48 hour treatment.
you could ask the court to send you to irac
when you draw from there stand contained by the way youll be right mate
Your go is so bad you agree on to end it and cant even get hold of that right? If you want to die, how can you **** that up? People who fail want help out, period. Theres no such entry as a failed suicide.
My husband go to jail for not paying a traffic ticket, and near was somebody near with him who attempted suicide.

They will possible hold you there within a jail cell at your local police department while they put your through tons of psychological carrying out tests and then you will see a mediator who will decide what to do beside you.

I suggest you call 211 right in a minute..its free and they can probably find someone for you to talk to right presently.
I'm sure there is some manner of mandated mental serve, but you can't really force anybody to do anything, but the State has to try. Hopefully that soul will realise that they have a serious problem and obligation help, if the form of counselling and medication, which work extremely okay and let that personality finally live a normal, well life (I know from personal experiences of family extremely close to me).
Best luck.
In NC suicide, or the attempt of it, is not against the law. However, if you attempt it, your mental state will almost assuredly be assessed and you may be involuntarily committed for inpatient treatment. Or you may be released for outpatient treatment or released altogether. That is dependent on what is arranged during your mental evaluation.

Commitment can be either voluntary or involuntary. It can be to a state facility or a privately run facility. It can be for all along time needed for it to be determined you no longer meet the criteria for commitment. Here contained by NC the criteria is are you a danger to yourself or others. If you are considered so, you can be committed, if you aren't you're not. Pretty simple contained by that aspect. A family partaker can go previously a magistrate and try for a commitment order. In that avenue, the human being applying for the order lays out their rationale for believing the request is appropriate, The magistrate consequently makes their determination of it's reasonable. If they feel it is, they issue it. If they surface it's not, they deny it. Pretty simple again. Then, if it's issued, the person is picked up and taken for an evaluation by a mental vigour professional to determine what kind of treatment, if any, is needed.
I find some of the answers contained by the forum far out and ridiculous, I suppose these people giving answers are NOT even sure what they are writing almost.

Some give answer that if a party commit suicide he will be jail or something, why would a command jail someone when he is burden near so much problems already & he will be subjected to imprisonment, where on earth is the logic in that? Of course not the parliament will not impose punishment on relatives committing suicide on whatever basis they feel they enjoy. Not necessarily the government is compel to provide free psychological assistance to folks who commit suicide. It is a personal problem of the individual and the government do not step surrounded by every people or character who do so in placing their time in their own hand.

Of course not, it is NOT illegal if someone commit suicide by jump in bridges or surrounded by flagpole or in ditches or climb mountains and hurl themselves within the ground. Of course the person or person(s) is mental disturb but not necessarily insane, as psychologist & psychiatrist studies general public behaviour near are problems in our lives that sometimes we do not know what to do, we sometimes snap that is to say why we have assistance centers or seminars on how to cope beside everyday problems esp. in the US within are institution who help these individual to start a tentative beginning.

Some populace here in the forum do not even know what to utter in these sympathetic of questionaire, suicide is considered too sensitive topic that some firm or institution kept this under wrap. Some ancestors here find time to JOKE on their answers, just approaching what I had read " SOME ARE SMARTER THAN OTHERS".

Restraining orders against minors?

In a situation, a illustrious school girl have pulled a knife on her best friend. The girl suffers from several mental illnesses, and merely pulled the blade because of a psychotic episode. The father of the "victim" puts a restraining order on the girl as a result. Do you deem this is morally right? Why or why not?
Answers: What is morally wrong was for the mother and/or father of the mentally not up to scratch girl to allow her to gain possession of a weapon, and then to thieve it into public. They should be getting her help, and if its not treatable, they have need of to have her contained by a safe place.

As to the arrangements of the father whos daughter was assaulted? I don't come up with morals come into play. He was man a protective parent, which is absolutely right. However, what he should enjoy considered is whether or not the restraining order would enjoy any effect. If the other girl was that mentally not a hundred percent, chances are that she wouldn't grasp the order, especially while have a "psychotic episode".

I suggest getting the troubled child better help, giving the assaulted child mace to stop an attacker, and not trying to find the morality of other people's actions, as we will adjectives someday be judged by someone near a much greater wisdom than ours.
Yes.

Logic dictates that a situation where on earth a knife is involved is potentially a threat to time. The first priority therefore, must be the sanctuary of any potential victims.

Then, and only next is it appropriate to try and deal next to underlying causes and to try and assist the person who have the mental illness.

If it be your mother or sister or child who was the potential subject I am sure you would agree with me.
Sure it's right!

However, a restraining instruct only works ably when the respondent is a rational thinking personage. So, if this person is mentally unstable approaching you say, it's probably not going to do much.


P.S. Can't speark for adjectives states, but in NC a restraining decree does not require a criminal conviction. Restraining orders are more frequently issued surrounded by civil, not criminal, matters. A involve for an order of that type within a criminal matter would more imagined be taken care of beside a person's release order when they are arrested and haven't be to trial yet. If they've be to trial and have be convicted, the restrictions will probably be taken care of contained by their judgement from the judge, not within a separate restraining order.
The father have every right to protect his child as best as he sees fit.
If to be precise his wish, afterwards it is legal. It is the responsibility of the other girl to business with her problem, help yourself to her medication, go to counselling and not be a vulnerability to society. If she does these kind of things, she can well end up contained by a special school near a bunch of unstable people, or within a padded room.
Hell yea it be right. Her mental psychotic episode is apparently making her a danger to society and she should hold been removed from the institution. What I find odd, be that this was even a request for information.

I'm 18, earning $12 an hour. A girl individual 16 has like job and earn $17 ph?

WE are both working ina gift shop so i guess it's retail. I'm exotic but so is she, we are both new. She is no better than me, but she is getting salaried an adults wage and me my minimum wage. One of the fellow workers is her auntie so im assuming that's why she is getting more.

Is that not however illegal? It really hurts and P*sses me stale that some bimbo can walk within and earn more just cos shes related, isn't that unjust?

what would u recommend?
Answers: Unless there's an agreement to the contrary, it is generally not banned to pay two inhabitants differently who work the same employment. Maybe the other person have applicable experience working another job. Maybe the other party works harder than you do and is more efficient. These are question only you can answer.

Can you see in your mind`s eye how unfair it would be if here was a directive forcing everyone to be paid indistinguishable? Then no matter how sturdy you worked, the lazy guy subsequent to you would make duplicate as you.
No, it's NOT illegal. And there's no such entry as an "adults wage" and a "child's wage." In some jobs the starting wage is dependent on several factors such as prior work history. In some job it could be the difference of 10 cents or 10 dollars.

Even if it IS because she's related to the fellow workers it's the employer's decision on how much to income the employees. In certainty, in some places it's against the rules to discuss wages for such a idea and the penalty is termination.

My suggestion: receive over yourself and if you're REALLY unhappy in the order of it get another assignment.
I don't know of any state which has a minimum wage of $12.00/hr. Washington state pays the unmatched at $7.93...

You don't get any more than you negotiate for: talk to the boss.

More Questions and Answers:
[202] - [2572] - [120] - [516] - [1167] - [501] - [1529] - [1080] - [2013] - [1831] - [1243] - [1653] - [409] - [693] - [2031] - [790] - [358] - [377] - [1664] - [1555]

The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.

Answer question: