At this point, you’re a complete fool if you believe a word that man says.

Our sick pay and PTO isn’t separated, caps at 320hrs and rolls over (rare W for California). However you are managerially allotted 6 sick days per year (if you take consecutive sick days, that’s considered as 1 sick day if that makes sense). However, after you take 6 sick days (or unplanned PTO), the manager could put…

I think most people really should be fine with 5-8 days a year.

I agree with your greater point that employees should conduct themselves with professionalism and conscientiousness. But my point is this manager is ignoring a pretty big logical flaw when they claim temp workers’ 2% rate indicates that others are abusing the system.

in the last 12 years I have called out from sick 1 time

The thing is, sick time is part of compensation. You want to see fewer “unsubstantiated” sick calls, then offer buy backs. “Use it or lose it” is the worst; I left 265 hours of sick leave on the table (over $20k in value) when I changed jobs years ago and I still feel like a chump. Meanwhile, I’ve worked other places…

You’re confused as to the target of your rage. YOUR EMPLOYER determined the appropriate amount of days and you seem to be upset someone uses those very days.

You sound like a crappy manager who seems to think that employees are clogs just like Elon and yes you are saying I’m a badass hardass curmudgeons.

Well, thanks for spreading your colds and flus to the rest of your co-workers. I find this idea about “I never take sick days” to be utterly ridiculous.

It’s not “the internet” that wants his head. It’s right wing trolls who can’t stand Baldwin because he mocked their glorious leader. If this same situation was happening to Jim Caviezel, they’d have a completely opposite opinion.

Absolutely not. It’s SAG rules that the armorer and ONLY the armorer is responsible for the safety of all weapons used on set. This is to prevent the nightmare of dozens (or more) actors tampering with the weapons on the set of a movie.

It’s for the ACTORS’ safety that they’re not allowed to ‘check’ the guns in use. Do…

I have to believe it only got pushed through was because for some reason the internet wants Baldwin’s head for what was a tragic accident.  If they didn’t have any hard evidence that Baldwin, himself, was intentionally negligent then this whole trial was a waste of tax payers money 

He wasn’t expecting the gun to fire, but had taken no measures to ensure that it was incapable of firing.

Not trying to argue, but honest question—in an ideal world, do you think every actor, stunt performer, and extra who’s ever pulled the trigger of a (non-replica) prop gun before checking it should face legal consequences? Or does Baldwin in particular deserve it because he was the one guy unlucky enough to end up one…

It is a movie set, there are a different set of rules. That has been well established. 

On the set of a movie, it is the armorer’s responsibility to ensure the weapons are safe to use for filming, and that no live ammo is loaded. The actors explicitly trust the armorer with their safety. He “could have” but isn’t expected to. The responsibility to ensure that no live ammo is used falls to the armorer.…

He had no reason to believe the gun wouldn’t fire. It wasn’t supposed to be loaded with live ammunition, period. The responsibility for ensuring there was no live ammo on set and in the device designed as a lethal weapon that was in perfect mechanical condition fell to the AD and the armorer, not Baldwin. SAG-AFTRA…

It’s been noted from the start that this looked like a new DA trying to make a name for herself, and seriously overreaching.

I mean, yeah, anyone following the news can point out how weak and plain weird the prosecution’s case was.

I like that people are doing planned out horror trilogies released relatively quickly for some reason lately.