johnnybangkok

As also a non-American observer, I couldn't agree with you less. The fact that American is still following a legal route to Trump makes it the absolute opposite of a banana republic. Although the January 6th hearings have taken a long time to get done, they have been thorough and damning in equal measures. On top of this, these raids by the FBI are part of an investigation into Trump's removal of official presidential records from the White House to his Florida resort (amazingly enough, you can't do this) and was on the back of The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration in February notifying Congress that it had recovered about 15 boxes of White House documents from Trump's Florida home, some of which contained classified materials. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-says-fbi-is-raiding-his-florida-estate-what-legal-woes-does-he-face-2022-08-08/ All of this is completely justified because, yet again, Trump refuses to follow the rules and acts in a manner that just automatically arouses suspicion (why WOULDN'T you return records to The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration UNLESS you had something to hide). Whether you think it's just a witch-hunt is irrelevant because the facts don't lend to that argument; he DID try to interfere in the election (and is in deep trouble in Georgia), he still insists the election was stolen and he did insight the January 6th attack on the Capitol. It wouldn't take a huge leap of imagination to think he stole or destroyed sensitive documents as well. P.S. A 'neutral' observer doesn't call people 'radical lefties' or refers to Antifa when the subject has nothing to do with it and they certainly don't keep going on about irrelevant facts such as Hunter Biden's laptop. There is nothing 'neutral' about your political leanings and I think that's very obvious to most.

Not true but yes, getting someone to fulfill their notice period can be difficult and since it’s rarely worth much, it wouldn’t be worth the hassle to enforce. It’s still a good idea to have a solid employment contract though for all other things.

I would say every single one of them. Which is quite impressive if you think on it.

Not true; employment contracts are very important in Thailand. Obviously anyone can get fired at any time at any job in any country but Thai employment law is very strict about the notice period money you should be getting paid and is VERY employee biased. You also have a robust system for unfair dismisal and the likes. This is why it's important to get the contract (with agreed notice periods) agreed in advance. If done properly it WILL hold up in an employment tribunial.

You are getting some REALLY bad advice here so let me set a few things straight for you. An employment contract is only valid once you actually start employment so legally, it doesn't matter if it's signed beforehand or on your first date of employment. You cannot be held to a contract (and you can't hold them to a contract) if you aren't working for them. The ONLY time you need a signed contract before you commence work is if you are getting your work-permit via a non-immigrant O visa issued in another country (which is the norm for most jobs as you cannot be issued this visa in Thailand) but since teachers get a non-immigrant B visa, they can apply once in Thailand with the following criteria:- https://hochiminh.thaiembassy.org/en/publicservice/non-immigrant-b-teaching-in-thailand? page=5d80ab3315e39c2fe800a7ab&menu=5d80ab3315e39c2fe800a7ac In your subsequent post you did say 'They want me to get a work visa and then they fly me out' which I assume means at the Thai Embassy in your home country. This is impossible without a either a signed contract or 'Letter of acceptance from the employing institute or school in Thailand'. If I was you, I'd send them the list of requirements for a non-immigrant B visa, as stated in the link I have included here and ask them for all the things that only they can supply (Letter of acceptance from the employing institute or school in Thailand, Letter of approval from government authorities, School license/Business registration, school profile etc) and see what their response is. If they are not willing to provide this then they aren't serious as it's simply impossible to get a visa without this information and therefore their participation. It just might be very possible that they are hedging their bets as far as the contract is concerned or it just might be they have had a bad experience before and just want to make sure you show up before they go ahead with all the other things required (including a signed contract) but by virtue of them asking you to get the visa in advance, it then puts the onus on them to get you everything you need for a successful application (to include a signed contract). Best of luck.

I've got one as well. Fred is the proud owner of the only talking dog in the world 'Rex'. One day Fred sticks $10 in Rex's collar and tells him to go to the local shop to pick up the papers and some groceries. Rex replies 'will do'. 2 hours go by and the dog is nowhere to be seen. Fred goes searching for him and is about to give up when he passes an alley and sure enough, there's Rex in there hunping away at the local 'bitch'. Fred runs up to Rex shouting, 'Rex, what the hell! You've never done this before'. To which Rex replies 'I've never had the money before.'

Lets start with ''Totally unreliable and annoying for us. I dont want to pay her because she hasn't given us any notice. I feel I want to teach her a lesson. What would you do? It will be annoying if she turns up and makes drama demanding her salary.' This is illegal. If she has worked the days/hours then legally you cannot withhold her money. 'They work hard but we pay the well above the norm compared to our competitors. We pay double time if they work on public holidays'. You have admitted in a subsequent post that you think you work them too hard. This could be the problem in a nutshell but easily solveable by hiring more than your usual 5 workers. If for example you hire 7, then you won't have to pay overtime as you do now (therefore halfing the hourly cost) and you will have back-up for when someone doesn't show up for a shift or doesn't return from a family visit. It's just a case of logistics and working out work time-tables and paying people for hours worked rather than for being employed. If done properly, 7 staff need not cost you any more than 5 staff without overtime. The rest of the problem is your attitude. 'I feel living in this third world mentality here in Thailand is wearing me down'. As much as I appreciate how draining all of this can be, no one forced you to open a business in Thailand and I think the least you could have done is try to understand the mentality of your workers. There has been plenty of posters on here giving you solid advice about how to keep low paid staff happy (treat them like family, make yours a fun environment to work in, give them something more than just 'above normal' salaries etc) but perhaps start with your own prejudices and pre-conceived ideas that is making you look VERY negatively on all of this. Start with doing an exit interview for all staff (you can go back as far as 6 months to a year) using a Thai that is NOT related to you nor the business (if you know any HR professional, that would be ideal but it has to be Thai). Then do a similar question and answer session with your current staff. Tell people it is confidential and you are not looking for anything else other than constructive criticism and you'll only be taking up 10 mins of their time. Then ask them questions along the lines of (for ex-staff) :- 1. Why did you leave the position? 2. What could we have done to keep you? 3. What is your thought on the working environment? Was it fun? Did you enjoy the work/people? 4. What would have been the single biggest thing we could have done to keep you employed? 5. What is your view of senior management? You will find that some just didn't care and it wouldn't have mattered what you did but if you ask enough people, you may find a trend that you were just not aware of (working them too hard for example). The point is you are just guessing right now....... so don't. Find out for sure what the problem is as then you are half-way to solving it. It is very difficult to see a problem from within especially when you are so involved yourself and/or feeling as cynical as you currently are. Best of luck and I hope it all works out for you. N.B. I run a recruitment and HR Consultancy business here in Thailand. I employ 54 staff myself but consult many, many companies who have similar problems to your own. Hopefully you will take this advice in the constructive manner it's meant.

I act like I'm 25 so it might be handy to look like I am.

What are you talking about? My posts are about the fossil fuel industry hiring a PR 'genius' to change the narrative on climate change. None of them are scientists but they are all con-men.

I know this. 'Though few outside the PR industry might have heard of E Bruce Harrison or the eponymous company he had run since 1973, he had a string of campaigns for some of the US's biggest polluters under his belt. He had worked for the chemical industry discrediting research on the toxicity of pesticides; for the tobacco industry, and had recently run a campaign against tougher emissions standards for the big car makers.' and also ' the GCC has successfully turned the tide on press coverage of global climate change science, effectively countering the eco-catastrophe message and asserting the lack of scientific consensus on global warming." 'https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-62225696

Don't you just love all the climate change deniers chastising everyone else for being 'woke' and 'getting conned' when the exact opposite is true. 'At stake was a contract worth half a million dollars a year - about £850,000 in today's money. The prospective client, the Global Climate Coalition (GCC) - which represented the oil, coal, auto, utilities, steel, and rail industries - was looking for a communications partner to change the narrative on climate change'. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-62225696 You are the end result of simple but effective PR and marketing campaign sponsored by the very people that would commercially gain from yours and everyone elses scepticism.

I think you should have at least the common decency to read my whole post before you 'simply decided to ignore the rest'. Not much point debating someone who can't even do this.

You have pretty much answered your own question here. No one is denying the survival rates but what we are debating is the reasoning. You are infering that women are choosing to carry a child for 6 months and then all of a sudden thinking 'you know what, I don't think I fancy this after all." It's a ludicrous proposition perpetuated by the religous right and obviously working on you. The VAST majority of women get abortions at less than 12 weeks. Again I will quote UK figures as this is the benchmark I am using but I think you will find it similar for the US and other developed countries. 'The proportion of abortions that are performed at under 10 weeks has continued to increase since 2010. In 2020, 88% of abortions were performed under 10 weeks, increasing from 82% in 2019 and 77% in 2010. In comparison, abortions performed at 10-12 weeks decreased from 9% in 2019 to 6% in 2020. The percentage performed at 20 weeks and over decreased from 2% in 2019 to 1% in 2020. The legal limit for a woman having an abortion is 24 weeks gestation. This is the point at which the fetus is viable outside the mother's body. Abortions may be performed after 24 weeks in certain circumstances, for example, if the mother's life is at risk or the child would be born severely disabled. Abortions where gestation is 24 weeks or over account for a very small number of abortions (0.1% of the total). There were 236 such abortions in 2020. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/abortion-statistics-for-england-and-wales-2020/abortion-statistics-england-and-wales-2020 Your 15 weeks cut-off is used in 94-97% of abortions, so the only reason to allow it after this time is in what I said in my original post which is serious medical concerns such as fetal anomalies or maternal life endangerment. Of interest to you might be that the UK used to have a 28 week period but this was cut to 24 weeks in 1990 when advances in detection meant there was no need to have a woman wait as long as 28 weeks to find out if there was a problem with her unborn child. In other words, medical professionals used their expertise to assess the situation and continue to do so. There is no room for religous views in this matter, nor indeed politicians who are skewing the optics to fit their agenda. You are being fed (and falling for) propoganda that is infering that women are going around killing their perfectly viable babies at 23 weeks for no other reason than a lifestyle choice. This is simply not true and again I would suggest the lowering of the time to 15 weeks is a gradual erosion of scientifically sound evidence in favour of an increasingly confident religous right who's sole objective is to have an outright ban on abortions.

Abortion is actually illegal in Germany but is 'tolerated' up to 12 weeks. Many medical professionals have been trying to change this for quite some time. In France its 14 weeks but again I would say this is almost entirely down to the fact that Germany is staunchly christian and France is catholic (and I think we all know the catholics stance on abortion). In either case it s not the established MEDICAL concensus that is being accepted but politicians trying to cater to a religous base. You will see this trend throughout the world where sound medical advice is sidelined in favour of religous bias, with the extreme being countries like Iraq, The Philipines, Palestine, Senegal, Andorra, Haiti, Republic of the Congo, Egypt etc with complete bans. As I've stated already, religion should not govern law but unfortunately in too many countries it already does.

It's telling that you think this and coming from the UK I'll tell you why. Medically it is much better to have the time period at 24 weeks. Those who know what they are talking about (you know, the medical professionals) guage this as the optimum time as in the rare times it is required (and it is very rare) it's usually due to 'medical concerns such as fetal anomalies or maternal life endangerment, as well as barriers to care that cause delays in obtaining an abortion.' https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/fact-sheet/abortions-later-in-pregnancy/ The ONLY reason you would lower this time is because you want to start a trend in lowering the age until you get to a time that is basically zero i.e. a complete ban on abortion. To the outside world America looks like it's becioming a religous state as so much of the political agenda is now being driven by the very powerful right-wing religous groups (backed by an increasingly right-wing GOP) who believe their religion should take precident over man-made laws. The Dems got badly flanked on the abortion law and are now madly scrambling to enshrine LGBTQ laws because they can see where this is all going. But it's a slippery slope downwards and the facts of this case completely lends to the importance of how religion can't be a leader in law making. A 10 year girl was raped and for some bizarre reason there's a question on where, how and 'who signs off' on her being able to get a legal abortion. There should be no ambiguity with this; only the welfare of a 10 year old should be of concern and what's evident in what has happened so far is medical professionals are confused and scared about their own well-being and whether they will have a job after doing the right thing for their patients. That can't be a good thing and something ALL Americans should be concerned about.

There already has been one. It’s called the Republican Party.

Thank you for sharing. It's always good to get the perspective of someone who has been through the tunnel and thankfully, come out the other end. I agree that such liberalisation and easy access can tempt those that perhaps weren't tempted before but I think the idea that something needs to be done trumps this issue as we have all seen the effects and failure of the 'War on Drugs'. So perhaps we need to look at countries that have decriminalised drug usage (and started treating addicts as a health issue rather than a legal one) such as Portugal. https://transformdrugs.org/blog/drug-decriminalisation-in-portugal-setting-the-record-straight. 'Portugal has set a positive example for what can be done when drug policies prioritise health rather than criminalisation. At the turn of the century, Portugal was facing a crisis, including high levels of HIV infection among people who use drugs. Many impacts of reform were felt immediately: new HIV infections, drug deaths and the prison population all fell sharply within the first decade. The second decade saw slower improvement in key measures, as well as an upturn in drug deaths. However, many of these factors need to be put into context. Drug policy is still only one variable interacting with a complex mix of social, economic, cultural and political factors, and cuts to wider health provision in that period will have played a part in this. Nevertheless, Portugal is in a much better position than it was in 2001 and recorded drug use and drug deaths as a proportion of the general population are both well below the European average. There are still drug laws in place in Portugal (trafficking and cultivation of illicit substances, as well as possession of quantities exceeding a ten days’ supply, remain criminal offenses for example) but by decriminalising personal possession, Portugal has been able to appoint district-level panels made up of legal, health and social work professionals, known as ‘Commissions for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction’. Where an individual is referred to a Commission for the first time and their drug use is assessed as non-problematic (low risk), the law requires their case to be ‘suspended’, meaning no further action is taken. Fines can be issued for subsequent referrals. Where some problematic trends are identified (moderate risk), brief interventions are proposed — including counselling — but these are non-mandatory. In ‘high risk’ cases, where more serious problematic behaviours and dependence are identified, individuals may receive non-mandatory referrals to specialised treatment services. It's not all roses and sunshine for Portugal but this sounds like a sensible approach to a problem that hasn't been sorted by the 'lock 'em up and throw away the key' policies of less enlightened countries.

I really wish people would stop using personal anecdotes to try and justify their stance on this matter. Yes, some people will not act responsibly but that's exactly the same for alcohol (much more I would suggest) and any other drug you care to mention. This idea that the minority dictates the majority does not hold up under scrutiny as this article clearly demonstrates that the VAST majority are acting responsibly and are doing the 'right' thing when it comes to weed. I predict this will be the norm but yes, there will be the odd idiot who does too much or gets themselves into unnecessary trouble by not acting responsibly. But isn't this the way of the world anyhow?

Same. I was going to recommend taking a 3-wood.

Lightweights

As has been pointed out to you numerous times, Pelosi had said yes to Rodney Davis, Kelly Armstrong and Troy Nehls even though they had all objected to Bidens certification as POTUS and are staunch Trump acolytes. She only rejected Jim Jordan and Jim Banks because of their reputation for being obstructionists who would try and scuttle the committee at every opportunity (something we have seen many, many times with these 2). McCarthy had a chance to accept the 3 that he had put forward and then choose another 2, just not these guys. He chose to not do that BECAUSE HE WANTED AN EXCUSE TO PULL OUT OF THE COMMITTEE. And yes of course this is about Trump because without Trump January 6th would not have happened. And the way to 'stop future similar riots' is to get to the bottom of this one and find those responsible and punish them. This obviously includes Trump.

Pelosi agreed to everything the Republicans wanted, except the inclusion of Jim Jordan and Jim Banks whilst approving Rodney Davis, Kelly Armstrong and Troy Nehls even though they had objected to Bidens certification as POTUS. McCarthy then used this as justification to pull out of a committee he was looking to pull out of anyway.

It's not true. Trust me.

Just as well it's your opinion as it certainly isn't science. As Robblok has pointed out, it is far less addictive than alcohol and indeed pretty much every other drug out there. It has PROVEN medical benefits to include pain management, inflammation reduction, neurological and mental disorders as well as sleep management to include insomnia. And yes it does have a calming 'dreamy' effect which lets admit it, the world could certainly do with right now.

Yet more blame apportioned to the wrong people. Trump was invited to speak (under oath) but has refused. He joins a long list of Republicans who have refused to appear to include McCarthy, Jordan, Perry, Biggs and pretty much everyone who backs his election fraud nonsense. And house Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy rejected a bipartisan commission way back in May of 2021 when 2 of his 5 nominees were rejected (although the other 3 were accepted and he could have nominated others). Despite this there are still 2 Republicans on the committee, McCarthy and Kinzinger (and McCarthy was offered an equal number of Republicans to Democrats on the committee but true to form, he refused). You can't throw your toys out of the pram when you were specifically invited to participate but refused to do so. And you certainly can't blame the format or outcome when you had every chance to change it.