[Penny]

Ok Folks, if you are looking for a job you better get a sense of humour. I was reading the job adverts in teh local paper, just having a look at morning tea yesterday. Its just a local paper so there are about 20 jobs in it. All but two jobs had under the requirements for the job "Must have sense of humor" or something to that effect.

SO if that is something you lack, I spose your outa luck!

hahaha, and the two jobs that didn't require you to have a sense of humor are probably the ones that it is probably most important too:

Kings Lodge (the local "massage" parlour)
Waitress at the local steak out

Good thing I have a sense of humour, otherwise I would be down at the Kings Lodge.

[Darkling]

Those ads would be illegal here.

Also ones which wanted someone "good natured" were banned.

Apparently it discriminates against people who aren't good natured or, in your case, have no sense of humour.





*edit*

I of course meant in the case of your example not you personally, but you knew that, right... right?


*phew*

[Penny]

Really, thats interesting, cos it does kinda discriminate, but I have never met anyone who thinks they don't have a sense of humour. Even though some poeple clearly don't.

When I was reading these ads I was kinda thinking, but how do they tell if you have a sense of humpour or not, cos I think I do, but I hate job interviews and I reckon it probably takes a back seat while the nerves and stuff take over.

[kall]

Discrimination is legal in a few cases over here.

One biggy - Insurance companies.

They are allowed to ignore the Bill of Rights (or whatever the hell it is called) and decline insurance to people for a number of reasons.

'Are you a beneficiary (on welfare?) No insurance for you.'
'Do you live somewhere that is possibly under a Waitangi Land Claim? No insurance for you.'

Etc.

[Darkling]

Originally Posted by kall

Discrimination is legal in a few cases over here.

One bigamy - Insurance companies.

They are allowed to ignore the Bill of Rights (or whatever the hell it is called) and decline insurance to people for a number of reasons.

'Are you a beneficiary (on welfare?) No insurance for you.'
'Do you live somewhere that is possibly under a Waitangi Land Claim? No insurance for you.'

Etc.

Insurance companies everywhere love that kind of thing.

Two examples from here.

One customer was insured against flood.
After a particularly nasty spell of rain, their house was 'flooded' by a torrent of water running off of the hill behind their house.

The insurance company refused to pay up on the grounds that they were not flooded as, by their definition, flood water must come up from below.


In this next case I'm slightly fuzzier on the reasoning.

A customer had home contents insurance.
I bird flew don their chimney spreading soot all over an expensive white carpet.
The carpet was ruined.

For whatever the reasoning the insurance company refused to pay, however, they would have paid if the bird had flown in through the front door and up the chimney instead of down.

[kall]

One possiblility: as the chimney is an unsecured entry/exitway in the house, damage caused by things entering would be excluded from cover...

Another: the companies are all bastards.

[Darkling]

Originally Posted by kall

One possiblility: as the chimney is an unsecured entry/exitway in the house, damage caused by things entering would be excluded from cover...

Another: the companies are all bastards.

Both sound plausible, though option B get's my vote.

[Sparklechick]

Possibly best not to get me started on Insurance companies. After a breakin I had a couple of years ago I really don't ever want to deal with them again.

Okay, so I had some jewellery stolen. I gave them the receipt for the jewellery $700 for a tri-gold bracelet. Quote from assessor comes back $350. When I queried why they had reduced it they said that they didn't think it was worth what we paid for it. Which isn't really the point now is it? The fact is that it was bought from a specialty gold shop and $700 was paid for it so that's what the assessor should say it is worth.

[Penny]

Insurance companies are mental. I have no end of trouble getting through to them on the phone. My car had someone attempt to brake into it while it was sitting in my driveway over night, They munted every lock so I could not get into my car at all, which meant having to call a locksmith out on the weekend, $$$, so someone suggested I ring up the insurance company to see if I can get some cover for it.

I still don't know I rung up and she wanted to know who was driving the car at the time, noone was driving the car, becuase someone tried to brake into it while it was parked in the driveway, yes but who was driving it at the time, grr I was so annoyed and said NOONE was, it was parked, I just want to know if theres cover or what have you for this, then she said yes but who was driving the car! Man I just hung up and figured theres nothing to be done, and paid the locksmith. Stupid stupid stupid people.

[kall]

You must have gotten a retard claims person.

Named driver clauses only apply to claims involving driving damage.

*shakes head*

[Penny]

yeah it was so annoying... but it was two years ago and I should probably let it go, but it is still annoying, cos when I have to ring them up again, I will be thinking, what stupid twit am I going to get this time.

[edshuck]

Remember my car?

Turns out the woman who hit me ricocheted off another car. An UNINSURED car.

So they are going after the driver. An unregestered Central American. So they will sue her, her employers (yes all that they can find). And they will raise our insurance because of the large number of uninsured driving in the state.

Gads.

[Penny]

Sounds stink Ed!

I know when we had our car accident (when I was young) the person that hit us didn't have insurance, so they had to use Mum & Dads, but the insurance company would have gone after him. But given the type of person he was I don't know if they would have gotten their money. Not sure how much power they have in that case.