06-19-2010, 02:12 AM
The matter is subjudiced in LHC and it's unwise to say that bala bala should be the decision. Courts are independent and justice should be expected. However, I am least hopeful for the trainee since it is not a matter to be governed by Labor laws on which lawyers do fight every day.
In my very much personal view firms should arrange proper mealing and official entertainment provisions while students sit late on various assignments. They should be paid somewhat travelling allowance if not allowed to leave on due time. If overtime is not to be paid, at least credit hours should be given and enhanced exam leaves should be allowed in easier days. This is the way to motivate the students.
As said by others late sittings should be avoided and a culture should be changed which is needed to be contributed by every one.
Students who are affected by firms' practices should reconsider joining/continuing with such firms based upon a fair judgment of the need of late sittings and the way they are compensated and the comparison with other practices in the market.
If needed NOC can be obtained and firm can be changed. There is no room for acting like HEROs in the firms (sorry if sounds hard) and this is what we witnessed in whole of our careers. Why? Because trainees have to get something from firms and they are the prime beneficiaries.
Firms are scarce and trainees are in abundance. The thing the supply of which exceeds its demand is always found to be cheaply available in market. Firms have heaps of CVs in their waiting-list files ranging from qualified people in various disciplines to part qualified ones and the ones who wish to join trainings under different streams. There is no such HEAP in the files of any trainee student. If I am saying wrong, let me correct please. So, one should judge his position, trade offs, other practices and everything before taking a step. That's why nothing is expected out of the case being discussed here.
These are economic facts regardless of whatever speeches we deliver in the name of professionalism and humanity etc.
I personally have no hopes for the case being discussed since it is based on heroic stance instead of any reasonable legal/well witnessed/supported grounds.
In general, I believe there is no room for heroic stance in firms. Heroes are usually found doing their personal businesses afterwards.
Regards,
In my very much personal view firms should arrange proper mealing and official entertainment provisions while students sit late on various assignments. They should be paid somewhat travelling allowance if not allowed to leave on due time. If overtime is not to be paid, at least credit hours should be given and enhanced exam leaves should be allowed in easier days. This is the way to motivate the students.
As said by others late sittings should be avoided and a culture should be changed which is needed to be contributed by every one.
Students who are affected by firms' practices should reconsider joining/continuing with such firms based upon a fair judgment of the need of late sittings and the way they are compensated and the comparison with other practices in the market.
If needed NOC can be obtained and firm can be changed. There is no room for acting like HEROs in the firms (sorry if sounds hard) and this is what we witnessed in whole of our careers. Why? Because trainees have to get something from firms and they are the prime beneficiaries.
Firms are scarce and trainees are in abundance. The thing the supply of which exceeds its demand is always found to be cheaply available in market. Firms have heaps of CVs in their waiting-list files ranging from qualified people in various disciplines to part qualified ones and the ones who wish to join trainings under different streams. There is no such HEAP in the files of any trainee student. If I am saying wrong, let me correct please. So, one should judge his position, trade offs, other practices and everything before taking a step. That's why nothing is expected out of the case being discussed here.
These are economic facts regardless of whatever speeches we deliver in the name of professionalism and humanity etc.
I personally have no hopes for the case being discussed since it is based on heroic stance instead of any reasonable legal/well witnessed/supported grounds.
In general, I believe there is no room for heroic stance in firms. Heroes are usually found doing their personal businesses afterwards.
Regards,
