franklin
12-12 11:49 PM
It depends on the terms of the contract.
I think Washington is an "At Will" employment state, so no matter what a contract says, its pretty much !#*$. I'd do some research if I were you -google, get some state specific employment law advice, check your employee handbook etc.
At Will means that either side (employer or employee) can end a contract at any point, AFAIK
Employee handbook should spell it out. I guess they "could" force you to use your PTO - don't know of the legality in that.
Just my opinion, not legal advice:o
Quick search online got this:-
At Will
In Washington, employees are presumed to be "at will." At-will employees may be terminated for any reason, so long as it is not illegal. Generally, employees that work under an employment contract can only be terminated for reasons specified in the contract. In Washington, in order to overcome the at-will presumption, an employee must show that the employer made clear and unequivocal statements of job security to the employee.
The most common exception to employment-at will is for public policy. This holds that an employee is wrongfully discharged if the termination is counter to an explicit policy of the government. One example is the discharge of an employee for filing a workers' compensation claim.
Employee Handbooks
While an employer is not required by law to have an employee handbook, in most cases, it is recommended. An employee handbook provides a centralized, complete and certain record of the employer's policies and procedures. It also provides more convenient access by employees and managers. At a minimum, an employee handbook should include:
* A statement regarding the at-will employment relationship
* An equal employment opportunity statement
* A policy regarding sexual and other types of harassment in the workplace
* Internet access, e-mail, and voice mail policies
* The Family Medical Leave Act
In Washington, in limited circumstances, the at-will presumption can be overcome and a just-cause employment relationship can be created by an employee's legitimate expectations that are grounded in an employer's policy statements. The employee has to show that the employer, through the employee manual or otherwise, made representations or promises that termination would be only for just cause.
The laws regarding an employer's duties and responsibilities arising under an employee handbook are complex, and a licensed attorney should be contacted to review individual circumstances.
I think Washington is an "At Will" employment state, so no matter what a contract says, its pretty much !#*$. I'd do some research if I were you -google, get some state specific employment law advice, check your employee handbook etc.
At Will means that either side (employer or employee) can end a contract at any point, AFAIK
Employee handbook should spell it out. I guess they "could" force you to use your PTO - don't know of the legality in that.
Just my opinion, not legal advice:o
Quick search online got this:-
At Will
In Washington, employees are presumed to be "at will." At-will employees may be terminated for any reason, so long as it is not illegal. Generally, employees that work under an employment contract can only be terminated for reasons specified in the contract. In Washington, in order to overcome the at-will presumption, an employee must show that the employer made clear and unequivocal statements of job security to the employee.
The most common exception to employment-at will is for public policy. This holds that an employee is wrongfully discharged if the termination is counter to an explicit policy of the government. One example is the discharge of an employee for filing a workers' compensation claim.
Employee Handbooks
While an employer is not required by law to have an employee handbook, in most cases, it is recommended. An employee handbook provides a centralized, complete and certain record of the employer's policies and procedures. It also provides more convenient access by employees and managers. At a minimum, an employee handbook should include:
* A statement regarding the at-will employment relationship
* An equal employment opportunity statement
* A policy regarding sexual and other types of harassment in the workplace
* Internet access, e-mail, and voice mail policies
* The Family Medical Leave Act
In Washington, in limited circumstances, the at-will presumption can be overcome and a just-cause employment relationship can be created by an employee's legitimate expectations that are grounded in an employer's policy statements. The employee has to show that the employer, through the employee manual or otherwise, made representations or promises that termination would be only for just cause.
The laws regarding an employer's duties and responsibilities arising under an employee handbook are complex, and a licensed attorney should be contacted to review individual circumstances.
wallpaper Newt Gingrich: Julian
probe
10-07 04:23 PM
I live in Ohio and my sympathies are with you. If another state has concerns with clause "non renewable/non transferable"then Ohio should also have concerns, but on the contrary Licenses are renewed in Ohio.I feel this is more of kneejerk reaction to 9/11 aftermath.I am dismayed, does policy makers are under notion that a alien (not from outer space) have to
go through all the travails of a new driver if they move to other state !?.
My past experience suggests you to visit few other License agencies around your place and hope lady luck smiles
upon you.
go through all the travails of a new driver if they move to other state !?.
My past experience suggests you to visit few other License agencies around your place and hope lady luck smiles
upon you.
RNGC
04-08 09:38 PM
As per INA 202, many of you know that for employment based immigration, the limit is 7% of 140k per country, if there are unused visas from family based or from previous years, USCIS should try to use them, which is not happenning....
see a detailed notes on INA 202 here...
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=240387
(search for gclong1)
I am trying to understand why the 7% was set ? When the law was signed. Things have drastically changed, more skilled people are coming to US from India, shouldn't the law be changed ? I think we should start pushing for more employment based visas, double it to 300k. The 7% formula has to be revisited.
Is 7% per country is fair ?
------------------------
Legal Immigrant Source Source:
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2006/table03d.xls
(More reports here...(http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/LPR06.shtm)
Population Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population
Cuba: ( BTW, Cuba is just taken as a example just to explain the math)
Total Population = 11,000,000 (11 Million)
Total Population Percent = 0.17 %
Legal Immigrants from Cuba to USA in 2006 = 45,614
Percent of Legal Immigrants from Cuba to USA compared with their population in 2006 = 0.4146 %
[(45614.0/11000000.0)*100.0 = 0.4146]
India:
Total Population = 1,131,264,000 (1.1 Billion)
Total Population Percent = 17 %
Legal Immigrants from India to USA in 2006= 61,369
Percent of Legal Immigrants from India to USA compared with their population in 2006 = 0.0054
[(61369.0/1131264000)*100.0 = 0.0054]
Cuba has a 0.4146 Legal Immigrants in US per 100 of their population
India has 0.0054 Legal Immigrants in US per 100 of their population
What is the difference in percent ?
(0.4146 - 0.0054)*100.0 = 40.92 % difference!!!!
India constitute 17% of world population, Cuba constitute .17 % of world population, so if we go by a country's population in deciding the % of EB visas it gets...
(17.0/100.0) * 140000.0 = 23,800 EB visas ?
(0.17/100.0) * 140000.0 = 238 EB visas ?
Soon, USA will be Chindia!
I am not arguing that we should follow the above formula either, just like how India and Cuba both have 7% limit, which does not make sense, the above math also does not make sense....
My argument is 7% per country limit for all countries, for a small country with 1 Million population and a big country with 1 B population does not make sense.
So, two issues need to dealt with for long term solution.
1. 140k EB visas to be increased to 300k
2. 7% per country needs to be changed (not sure what should be the criteria)
see a detailed notes on INA 202 here...
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=240387
(search for gclong1)
I am trying to understand why the 7% was set ? When the law was signed. Things have drastically changed, more skilled people are coming to US from India, shouldn't the law be changed ? I think we should start pushing for more employment based visas, double it to 300k. The 7% formula has to be revisited.
Is 7% per country is fair ?
------------------------
Legal Immigrant Source Source:
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2006/table03d.xls
(More reports here...(http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/LPR06.shtm)
Population Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population
Cuba: ( BTW, Cuba is just taken as a example just to explain the math)
Total Population = 11,000,000 (11 Million)
Total Population Percent = 0.17 %
Legal Immigrants from Cuba to USA in 2006 = 45,614
Percent of Legal Immigrants from Cuba to USA compared with their population in 2006 = 0.4146 %
[(45614.0/11000000.0)*100.0 = 0.4146]
India:
Total Population = 1,131,264,000 (1.1 Billion)
Total Population Percent = 17 %
Legal Immigrants from India to USA in 2006= 61,369
Percent of Legal Immigrants from India to USA compared with their population in 2006 = 0.0054
[(61369.0/1131264000)*100.0 = 0.0054]
Cuba has a 0.4146 Legal Immigrants in US per 100 of their population
India has 0.0054 Legal Immigrants in US per 100 of their population
What is the difference in percent ?
(0.4146 - 0.0054)*100.0 = 40.92 % difference!!!!
India constitute 17% of world population, Cuba constitute .17 % of world population, so if we go by a country's population in deciding the % of EB visas it gets...
(17.0/100.0) * 140000.0 = 23,800 EB visas ?
(0.17/100.0) * 140000.0 = 238 EB visas ?
Soon, USA will be Chindia!
I am not arguing that we should follow the above formula either, just like how India and Cuba both have 7% limit, which does not make sense, the above math also does not make sense....
My argument is 7% per country limit for all countries, for a small country with 1 Million population and a big country with 1 B population does not make sense.
So, two issues need to dealt with for long term solution.
1. 140k EB visas to be increased to 300k
2. 7% per country needs to be changed (not sure what should be the criteria)
2011 Newt Gingrich (1 of 14)
sudhirdd
07-11 04:36 PM
As long as you are employed, and company is paying you decent salary (atleast salary mentioned on the L/C) you are fine, you must be employed at time of RFE/NOID etc..
Thanks a lot for your valuable input.
But I beleive all the input you mentioned, would be applicable for all kind of employer (Bigger or smaller) and get the RFE for ability to pay. I would like to know if you join the real small emplyer (about 35 employee) would it necessarly cause any other postential issue and/or must be a chance of getting the RFE as joining the such a small employer?
Please let me know.
Thanks for all your input in advance.
Thanks a lot for your valuable input.
But I beleive all the input you mentioned, would be applicable for all kind of employer (Bigger or smaller) and get the RFE for ability to pay. I would like to know if you join the real small emplyer (about 35 employee) would it necessarly cause any other postential issue and/or must be a chance of getting the RFE as joining the such a small employer?
Please let me know.
Thanks for all your input in advance.
more...
GCwaitforever
06-30 06:01 PM
Should not the mere fact of finding a substitute person for the labor petition invalidate the labor petition itself? The idea of labor petition meant to indicate non-availability of local talent (which includes H-1Bs already present?)... This is a contradiction in substitute labor petitions.
bestia
07-20 02:37 AM
I think another argument would be to request a statistics of how many actual terrorists or big criminals FBI caught during that "name check" process. Why would a terrorist apply for LC/I-140/I-485, go to FP, sit at the same address for years, provide his true identity and real (not fake) documents, and wait while FBI will check his name? And then he will sit and wait until FBI will knock his door? Did FBI catch at least ONE person during that process?
Another argument. Why GC should be issued only AFTER name check? What difference from security stand point makes if a person on GC or on EAD/AP cycle? If he is a terrorist he suppose to be caught, interrogated, charged, centenced, deported. The law allows doing that on either GC or EAD/AP stage. So then why torture people on EAD/AP stage for years?
Another argument. Why GC should be issued only AFTER name check? What difference from security stand point makes if a person on GC or on EAD/AP cycle? If he is a terrorist he suppose to be caught, interrogated, charged, centenced, deported. The law allows doing that on either GC or EAD/AP stage. So then why torture people on EAD/AP stage for years?
more...
speddi
10-04 10:05 AM
finally found someone who is interested from Alabama..I am in Birmingham, Alabama.
2010 Newt Gingrich said this
Ann Ruben
07-06 06:04 PM
Hi Raj,
"as long as the new company can provide me a future job offer, when the PD is current the GC can be approved."
Well, not exactly. The above statement is true only as long as you do not abandon your AOS application. To make sure that USCIS does not find that you have abandoned your AOS application you should maintain the validity of your Advance Parole if at all possible. Alternatively, if you maintain a current H-1 visa for the new employer, there is a reasonable argument (but not a guarantee) that, despite your absence abroad, you have not abandoned your AOS application. Finally, if after working overseas for the new company for at least one year, the company successfully files an EB-1 I-140 petition for you, you (and your family) can immigrate via Consular Processing in the EB-1 preference category using your old EB-3 priority date if necessary.
Should I transfer my H1B with the new company, or it's not required? My job offer will be from the Indian company, and not the US company.
If you maintain your Advance Parole validity, an H-1 transfer to the new company would not be necessary.
"In case of business travel, until the PD is current, if I don't have AP renewed which visa should I travel on? As I won't be paid directly from the US counterpart of the company, I am not sure if I can travel using H1 for short time.
Could traveling on B1 visa consider it as abandonment of GC process?"
You raise an important point. Travelling on a B-1 visa would certainly be considered an abandonment of your AOS application. Similarly, if you are found not to be "employed" by a US company because you are not on the US payroll, you would not be entitled to enter in H-1 status.
Ann
"as long as the new company can provide me a future job offer, when the PD is current the GC can be approved."
Well, not exactly. The above statement is true only as long as you do not abandon your AOS application. To make sure that USCIS does not find that you have abandoned your AOS application you should maintain the validity of your Advance Parole if at all possible. Alternatively, if you maintain a current H-1 visa for the new employer, there is a reasonable argument (but not a guarantee) that, despite your absence abroad, you have not abandoned your AOS application. Finally, if after working overseas for the new company for at least one year, the company successfully files an EB-1 I-140 petition for you, you (and your family) can immigrate via Consular Processing in the EB-1 preference category using your old EB-3 priority date if necessary.
Should I transfer my H1B with the new company, or it's not required? My job offer will be from the Indian company, and not the US company.
If you maintain your Advance Parole validity, an H-1 transfer to the new company would not be necessary.
"In case of business travel, until the PD is current, if I don't have AP renewed which visa should I travel on? As I won't be paid directly from the US counterpart of the company, I am not sure if I can travel using H1 for short time.
Could traveling on B1 visa consider it as abandonment of GC process?"
You raise an important point. Travelling on a B-1 visa would certainly be considered an abandonment of your AOS application. Similarly, if you are found not to be "employed" by a US company because you are not on the US payroll, you would not be entitled to enter in H-1 status.
Ann
more...
vidyakulkarni
02-05 06:26 PM
what is OCI??
hair of the House Newt Gingrich
cool_desi_gc
03-06 11:04 PM
You will get an RFE from USCIS.You can reply to the RFE with the Medicals.
more...
vxg
09-10 03:46 PM
I'm in the same boat. Got my CPO mail 2 hrs after filing an SR last week, but still waiting for my better half to get the approval. I had filed a separate SR for her and it returned with a standard "will get back in 60 days" response. Oh well, after waiting many years I can wait a few more days...
On a brighter side since your wife is derivative on your case even without GC she can work on EAD and can work any job no AC21 or what is written as job responsibilities in labor cert hassle. Though it is still some financial pain to renew EAD and AP. Good luck.
On a brighter side since your wife is derivative on your case even without GC she can work on EAD and can work any job no AC21 or what is written as job responsibilities in labor cert hassle. Though it is still some financial pain to renew EAD and AP. Good luck.
hot Newt Gingrich sounded off
webm
03-06 02:39 PM
yes EB3 India. I think when I look back, its just a matter of luck. Once it was RFE, second time I got a second finger printing and third time they just did'nt pick it up. But USCIS has been very promptful in approving my EADs and AP. I could be very well one of the oldest processing case sitting in the TSC shelf.
(1700 days)
We wish you get your GC soon.!!:)
(1700 days)
We wish you get your GC soon.!!:)
more...
house Newt Gingrich, who is
tonyHK12
10-04 02:21 PM
I contribute no more than 10% of my pay towards my 401K. I would not contribute more than this because I don't intend to stay here for a very long time. .
I contribute just 2-4% as I don't get company match. Regardless if you get a match, I know some friends who prefer to put it in India/mother's fixed deposit accounts for 8-10% interest, or if you have a PF account still open its an option. Property prices there too may shoot up in some areas, giving a good return, while here they may stay stagnant for many years.
Some banks allow NRIs to trade stocks or mutual funds in India too.
The only reason for 401K is if you plan to retire here.
Liquidity is a big problem as you have to quit the company for withdrawal from 401K. Some 401Ks give you loan at 2-3% interest. Its kind of strange because its your own money.
I contribute just 2-4% as I don't get company match. Regardless if you get a match, I know some friends who prefer to put it in India/mother's fixed deposit accounts for 8-10% interest, or if you have a PF account still open its an option. Property prices there too may shoot up in some areas, giving a good return, while here they may stay stagnant for many years.
Some banks allow NRIs to trade stocks or mutual funds in India too.
The only reason for 401K is if you plan to retire here.
Liquidity is a big problem as you have to quit the company for withdrawal from 401K. Some 401Ks give you loan at 2-3% interest. Its kind of strange because its your own money.
tattoo Newt Gingrich
richshi
01-07 09:17 AM
How stupid and insenstive the administrator has behaved by initially denying the prize to the Lin's baby. Was $25,000 prize worth the criticism from the Chinese community which will result in bad image and probably rascism label to Toys R Us? If this story gets published in Chinese newspaper on mainland, look how this will affect their sales there. Nowdays, who can risk losing China market?
It is not fair to call the resignation of the administrator of this event because of the poor judgement he excercised... but an internal reprimand is certainly appropriate.
It is not fair to call the resignation of the administrator of this event because of the poor judgement he excercised... but an internal reprimand is certainly appropriate.
more...
pictures Newt Gingrich Supporter
lostinbeta
10-15 10:18 PM
I watch it =)
Haha, just kidding, my niece watches it :) :P
Haha, just kidding, my niece watches it :) :P
dresses Candidate Newt Gingrich
tabletpc
06-17 01:40 PM
Been there, done that , do this�!!!
Long story short. I am not sure if its illegal , but surly it is questionable and could make your immigrations issues complicated.
I contemplated a lot when I developed the iPhone App. Looking at the number of downloads now , I could have made good money �. but could have been at the cost of some complications. With 485 pending I did not wanted to land into another delay�!!!
So play it safe for now�keep it as free.
For those interested in iPhone programming resources�..iTunes has lots of podcast. Stamford podcasts are my favorite.
Long story short. I am not sure if its illegal , but surly it is questionable and could make your immigrations issues complicated.
I contemplated a lot when I developed the iPhone App. Looking at the number of downloads now , I could have made good money �. but could have been at the cost of some complications. With 485 pending I did not wanted to land into another delay�!!!
So play it safe for now�keep it as free.
For those interested in iPhone programming resources�..iTunes has lots of podcast. Stamford podcasts are my favorite.
more...
makeup Newt Gingrich Former
gcny2006
05-28 03:35 PM
Talking abt running this site. I think IV should enforce a mandatory $15 per year for access to this site. In interest of full disclosure - I have been a free loader myself for a very long time but have realized its pointless if you are not helping the cause. The people who are visiting this site have one thing in common - They have a BIG problem and if they cannot make a SMALL contribution towards solving that problem this community has no use for them.
girlfriend Newt Gingrich#39;s Sleazy
Sreenuuk
06-15 03:35 PM
No need to write "None"..just leave it blank. Thats what my attorney told.
hairstyles Candace Gingrich and Newt
Macaca
01-12 05:37 PM
I will be happy with the following requirement (that is lower then the carpet).
Don't have to mantain status. That is, absence of pay checks is not required.
Don't have to mantain status. That is, absence of pay checks is not required.
duttasurajit
10-18 02:22 PM
I did some research and it seems for AC21 the job description matters and it should be same or similar. The job title may be different.
I think we should be fine but it is safe to take the opinion of at least two good immigration attorneys before proceeding.
I think we should be fine but it is safe to take the opinion of at least two good immigration attorneys before proceeding.
Rb_newsletter
02-10 12:52 PM
We just need GC without asking anything after working 10 years legally with paid all tax without hopeing for Social Security.
I like this point.
I like this point.
0 comments:
Post a Comment