Makes perfect sense why it couldn't answer your question, you didn't have the vocabulary of relational algebra to correctly prime the model. Any rudimentary field have their own corpus vocabulary to express ideas and concepts specific to that domain.
I don't think it is anything to do with complexity, or grouping code/data, its just a natural tendency of people to categorize things together that display a high degree of class inclusion. And some categories are easier to deal with than others.
A judge would automatically throw out the case if this was the argument for suing an employee. The reasoning being, if you continued to pay the employee during the term of their employment, and you knew that the employee was not performing based on some KPI or some yard stick, you would issue warning to the employee to improve their performance, or you would fire the employee on the spot. Continuing keep an underperforming employee is giving tactic consent that their work is reasonably acceptable because if it wasn't, you would start disciplinary action or cease their employment.
Threating a employee with coercive threats (such as threats of legal action) is going to land the business into hot water in any modern society.
> The reasoning being, if you continued to pay the employee during the term of their employment, and you knew that the employee was not performing based on some KPI or some yard stick, you would issue warning to the employee to improve their performance, or you would fire the employee on the spot. Continuing keep an underperforming employee is giving tactic consent that their work is reasonably acceptable because if it wasn't, you would start disciplinary action or cease their employment.
We're talking about an employee on a fixed term contract, so there's not really any scope for disciplinary action of the "performance improvement plan" type. And the argument would be that they were hired because of a time-sensitive job (hence the need for this kind of irregular employee) and so just not paying them for work doesn't make the company whole, they needed someone to do that work at that specific point in time and if not then they have damages that are much larger than the salary they would've paid.
Of course by the time you get to court you can poke several holes in this argument. But under Japanese law it's a valid argument on its face, so it's something the employer can use to threaten.
Each party has their own valid argument that is why they're seeking the court to make a ruling. How-ever coercive threats of legal action is also in of itself constitute a encroachment of someone free will and statutory right which everything being equal could be ground for further legal recourse by the other party. You could also go into nit picking details around consent and duress during employment, which can get complicated really quickly.
> Each party has their own valid argument that is why they're seeking the court to make a ruling.
In many countries that kind of lawsuit would be trivially dismissed, because an employee not working does not give an employer a cause of action. In Japan a company can at least in theory be owed damages if an employee on a fixed-term employment contract of less than a year fails to work, so a case like that would go to trial on the merits (even if everyone knows it's very difficult for the company to actually meet the bar for showing damages) and be significantly more costly to defend, and that fact creates a chilling effect.
> How-ever coercive threats of legal action is also in of itself constitute a encroachment of someone free will and statutory right which everything being equal could be ground for further legal recourse by the other party.
Why so? You don't see ads in Google's enterprise products. The GP cancelled their business subscription because of an issue with their personal account. Also it's a very good product and the competition is Microsoft, which is not much better.
Reflective Listening can be a slippery slope to hell. Yes people will love trauma dumping all their inner most unresolved issues onto you but it doesn't help you develop mature mutual reciprocal relationships with people. Unless you like being a empathetic listening ear to peoples problems and being deferential to their wants, need, or desire instead of your own.
Reflective listening doesn’t mean to parrot back what someone says, but it is an artform to transform what they say to add clarity and precision, for example by representing assumptions of the other person accurately as such and help differentiate them from facts (and much more). You also ask questions to help the other see different perspectives in and about themselves. Systemic approaches add a huge repository of potential questions, such as „what would your life look like without that problem“ and such.
You also do not repeat every single thing, but pick what you think is essential. The other person will then immediately see if something is missing from the summary, which overall leads to weeding out what is important from the not important, and eventually escape thinking loops. Without you adding anything, just by selective removal, you end up with the essence of the problem. It’s a process of distillation.
Known techniques for example are nonviolent communications and Focusing. That is a multi year accreditation process.
Reflective listening has the main purpose of allowing the speaker to be emotionally validated. Why is this important at all? Because emotional validation is a necessary precursor to modulating beliefs. Contrary to popular beliefs, people are rarely logic-ed into new beliefs, especially away from maladaptive beliefs. For example to someone who feels unloved, telling them they are loved will not change their mind.
I'm not sure what experience you have with changing people's beliefs, but so far this isn't the way to do it.
Why? Because not every tool can be used in all contexts. I use reflective listening to support friends.
It sounds like your argument is "If reflective listening is better, then it should be used universally." I'm not making that claim. The claim I'm making is that reflective listening is good for emotional validation.
I think you've got it around backwards. Your trying to look for external validation instead of having a internal locus of control. It is nice to talk about observation of people and some how rationalize some inner monologue of some sort of internal mental model but it is just a exercise in conjecture.
Just focus on developing your own set of qualities that you want from people. If people meet those qualities then great but if they don't then just move on. All you can do with people is sit down and shut up, and let them do what-ever they want to do, and then you get to decide if you want to participate in it or not.
In an ideal scenario maybe, but we are social animals and we don't always conscientiously choose whose emotional feedback we value (in the case of managers/mentors/etc we cannot even choose)
