SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Is it the end of the 9 to 5 working day?
Traditional workplace hours of 9am to 5pm are now only the norm for a minority of workers, research suggests. Just 6% of people in the UK now work such hours, a YouGov survey found. Almost half of people worked flexibly with arrangements such as job sharing or compressed hours, allowing them to juggle other commitments, it found.
Anna Whitehouse, a campaigner whose own flexible working request was refused by her employer, said there were still misconceptions about such arrangements. In her case, her employer refused her request for 15 minutes flexibility at the start and end of each day to enable her to drop off and pick up her children from nursery. "They denied it because they said it would open the floodgates for other people to request the same thing." [...] Since then she has started the Flex Appeal, aimed at convincing firms to trial flexible working and also to make people aware of their right to request flexible working.
[...] Polling firm YouGov surveyed over 4,000 adults for the survey, which was commissioned by fast-food chain McDonald's.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday August 22 2018, @02:57AM
I got paid twenty-three grand for it. I mean I really did. How cool can that be?
My client said he was down with it because I sent him "daily" progress reports at all hours of the day and night, as well as having flawlessly implemented lots of features and killed lots of bugs dead but good.
Too bad the dot-com crash hit my client as its very first victim with me second: all his investors disappeared a couple weeks before I billed him for $21k.
I discussed it with quite a reputable commercial collection agency. They advised me that to have enforced collection would have driven them into bankrupty.
In the end my client sold the website, all the trademarks and the like to some guy I don't know anything about. That has been... let me check... yeah it's still there EIGHTEEN YEARS LATER!!!! That's like Millenia in our line of work. Whoever they sold their site to must be quite the Cool Frood.
It happens that they abandoned the original trademark name as well as its trademarked logo quite a long time ago.
I have not the advice of any actual attorney but the advice of several experienced industry pros who have reason to assert that I own the code now. This is from Y2K - my original clients either offed themselves, blended into the burbs or struck it rich in some entirely unrelated way. Knowing my client I'm quite certain it's that unrelated way.
I'm planning to ship this product but only after extensive revision. I _might_ register their trademarked name but would not use their logo. Even so that would be asking for trouble. The trademark I actually use would be based on availability of the domain name as well as defensive domain name registration - not just the .com but the .net, the .org, the .co and so on as well as a USPTO (R) trademark search and Googling for unregistered (TM) trademark search.
How many of you think to consult the USPTO _before_ you register a domain? Yeah I thought so.
In other news, I was puzzling over paying two grand to a "domainer" for a truly valuable name but after screwing around with "$ dig tarfu.org" stumbled across a whole whack of even more valuable domains so fuck 'em if he can't take a joke.
It is only in the last few months that I've come to regard all the bazillions of new TLDs as being a wise decision: it totally _destroys_ the domainers, many of whom paid thousands or even tens of thousands for once-valuable Internet Real Estate that now no one at all gives a damn about.
"Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke." -- J.R. "Bob" Dobbs
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]