S P O I L E R
S P A C E
There's *no* way he had forgotten about Mark. I for one nearly fell out of my chair when I saw him. Thankfully I don't think he'll show up again, because it causes Ross to behave like in TOW all the jealousy and that's unbearable.
"cookie dude" wrote in message news:403f682b$0$28974$[email]...
Really? I honestly didn't recognize him, even after the episode I rewound it and watched it again and I still couldn't beleive it was him!
Thank goodness they said Mark had a wife and new twin babies. I felt like they were about to go down that road again when Ross and Rachel broke up the first time. Did it seem weird to people that a head hunter was trying to woo Rachel to a new job at Gucci when she was apparently such a bad employee for Ralph Lauren? That whole storyline was odd to me.
"Jackson" wrote in message news:MZQ%b.2967$3X2.799@okepread04...
the
employee
well, they were old friends, and he probably didn't know she was such a bad employee at Ralph Lauren ;^)
"me" wrote in message news:...
we dont' know that she was a bad employee. We have no idea if she is or isn't, but we've always been made to believe that she's actually good. Her boss at RL was just saying that she wasn't a "team player"
We do know she didn't know the guy's name that came up to say how sorry he was to hear she was leaving RL.
Of course it's more than that. If she was off on a job interview, she clearly is looking for something else. It's not like she was fired because she didn't work well with others, she was fired because she was already ready to make a leap to another company.
I'm not sure if that's legal grounds for a firing.
Michael
If you're a good employee and your boss finds out you're thinking of leaving, he might consider asking you what it would take to make you stay (pay rise, promotion, interesting new project etc). At least, that happens in England sometimes. So maybe he's not too sorry to see her go. And we know Rachel sits around in the coffee house when she's meant to be at work, which isn't a great sign, is it?
In fact, did Rachel even get any of these jobs on her work merit? She worked at Central Perk where the manager fancied her, Mark (who fancied her) got her the Bloomingdale's job and she got the RL job in that weird interview where she kept kissing the interviewer. I'm sure there are other examples where her work skills got her somewhere - can anyone think when?
It's legal grounds unless she had a contract, which I don't think she did.
You can't get fired for going on an interview for another job unless you do it on company time, then it is up to your manager's discretion. Rachel was having the interview on her lunch hour. Ralph Lauren really had no legal grounds to fire her. ~~~ Kathy
"Rick" wrote in message news:MOM0c.19559$[email]...
"Kathy" wrote in message news:...
Unless you have a contract, which hardly any non-union employee has, you don't even need to be given a reason to be fired.
I feel sure someone in her position at RL had a contract. My last employer of over 35k employees required employment contracts with everything above a director/manager. Being told she wasn't a "team player" really wasn't enough. ~~~ Kathy
"Bob" wrote in message news:[email]...
news:...
do
was
legal
I think you are confusing good management with legalities. Certainly a good manager would not fire someone for simply "not being a team player". But in the real world, people get fired every day for no other reason than that the manager doesn't like them. It may not be right, but it is perfectly legal. In this case, there probably was a ton of paperwork that got filled out, and there may have been an "official" reason given that was different from Rachel's remark that she was fired for not being a team player. But the bottom line is this: in the absence of a contract (which we have no reason to believe Rachel had) and in the absence of legally defined discrimination (based on sex, religion, age, etc - which again we have no reason to believe happened in this case), Rachel can legally be fired for any reason her employer wants. Sure, she can try to sue for wrongful termination, but I guarantee you she won't win.
----- Original Message -----
Yes, and that would open up Ralph Lauren to a nasty wrongful termination lawsuit if something like that happened IRL. Your average "Joe Peon" doesn't have to be given a reason other than "your services are no longer required." But, managers and above have to go through a ton of paperwork, exit interviews, etc. and the company has to cover their collective butts legally and make sure that every allegation made against the employee with regard to being terminated can be proven without a doubt. Saying something like "you're not a team player" is just not enough. Not being a team player is a problem that can be rectified without someone losing their job because of it. ~~~ Kathy
Apparently, so did Chandler! (the "is this 7 years ago?")
She wasn't a bad employee at Ralph Lauren. How would she have climbed the job ladder to director of the men's Polo division (and she was personally selected by Ralph Lauren for the job promotion, if you remember) if she was such a "bad employee"? What happened was - and this is how it happens in real life, too - to save face, her boss told her she wasn't a team player and came up with a lot of junk to try and justify it. All companies would rather fire someone than have them quit. ~~~ Kathy
"Jackson" wrote in message news:MZQ%b.2967$3X2.799@okepread04...
the
employee
"Kathy" wrote in message news:[email]...
was
yeah, you're right. I just rewatched the scene...for some reason I had forgotten it was team player.
S P O I L E R
S P A C E
I disagree somewhat. A company would rather an employee quit than to fire them so their unemployment insurance rates will not increase. That's my real world comment. Now for my Friends World comment: HELLO!?! Has everyone forgotten that she accused her boss (who is STILL the same actor) of trying to buy her baby to get Joey to talk to her? And remember when she came back from maternity leave-she didn't know how to lift the chair? Even though she isn't, she should have been the blonde...(I am blonde-I can type that!)
"Kathy" wrote in message news:[email]...
was
like
to
You cannot receive unemployment compensation if you quit a job. ~~~ Kathy
"lrlee" wrote in message news:4BB1c.7306$[email]...
she
to
the
personally
in
player
would
up
In alt.tv.friends on Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Kathy wrote :
Not even in 'constructive dismissal' cases?
I don't believe there's anything constructive about being fired. However, in the state I live in, one cannot receive unemployment compensation if you quit a job - either with or without a notice - or get fired. I can't see someone quitting a job without another job waiting for them. That's another story. I was turned down for unemployment because I was fired from a company that I'd worked at for 6 yrs. I filed the claim, but was denied because of being fired. You can receive it if your job was eliminated by the company and if you are laid off for lack of work, either temporarily or permanently. I am a veteran of unemployment because my job position was eliminated in March 2003 and from April to November of last year, I received unemployment payments. Basically, you get get the money if you left your job through no fault of your own. ~~~ Kathy
"Paul Hyett" wrote in message news:[email]...
"lkng4chubs" wrote in message news:...
I couldn't see any resemblance. Was he played by the same actor as before?
"Adele" wrote in message news:[email]...
news:...
rewound
before?
Yes! I was sure it's a different actor- but it's not!
http://www.tvtome.com/tvtome/servlet/PersonDetail/personid-4629
Look, he appears for all the old episodes Mark was in.
Actually in the pic in that page he looks a lot more like the Mark I remembered.
Can't believe it's the same guy.
lkng4chubs wrote:
S P O I L E R
S P A C E
I recognized him the moment he appeared in that revolving door. Only I thought "no way is this who I think it is". Then, as the scene played on, I felt like Chandler - "it's seven years ago".
Maybe it's just me, but the scene heavily reminded me of the one where Ross comes to pick up Rachel from her interview at Bloomingdale's and she pays more attention to Mark than him.
I half expected someone to say, "Are we in a rerun?" ;)
I felt sure he remembered him when he commented about getting tenure. But maybe one could argue that his brain blocked out Mark's face because of the trauma. I was shocked to see him, too. And there goes another from your list. I hope we won't see Chloe next week!
Belphoebe wrote:
S P O I L E R
S P A C E
I suppose I'm not that bad at this guessing thing after all. Normally, whenever I predict something will happen on Friends, the exact opposite happens. And to think I only put Mark on that list for a laugh... I wonder what that phone call was like, when Steve Eckholdt was asked to re-appear. If I were him, I wouldn't have been able to stop laughing for a couple of minutes.
So here's my opinion on this mini cliffhanger (since there won't be any new episodes until April, right?): Rachel's going to decide to take the job and Ross can't really do anything about it, since he gave that whole speech/toast in Central Perk about how important a successful career is. Then, five minutes before the last episode ends, he quits his job, which is another huge sacrifice on his side, since as of 1014 he can't be fired from his current job, and leaves with her to Paris, even though it means he can't see Ben that often - but he doesn't really exist anymore anyway.
cookie dude wrote in message news:...
You are kidding right? While I have a low opinion of Ross Geller you are making me out to be the biggest boob in televison history. Ross and Rachel are not even in love (again) let along a couple in a serious relationship. Yet he is going to quit his job and abandon his son to be with Rachel in Paris to too only if Rachel agrees. What kind of relationship is that going to be like? Imagine how silly and pathetic he will look.
The only way for this to be plausible is for them to be an item again. But I think it would be better they remain friends and Rachel moves to Paris.
Lydia M wrote:
S P O I L E R
S P A C E
umm... Did I say *anywhere* the scenario I described was a good idea? It was merely a prediction based on the lazy writing that has continuously led to the destruction of all the main characters. Writing a sensible storyline is not something these people want to do, they're in it for the big overly forced and contrived drama.
I thought it was fairly obvious how I felt about the scenario I described when I mentioned how it would lead to Ben being completely neglected by his father. Apparently not.
Correct. :(
This sounds as likely as any outcome (and please, folks, I wanna stay spoiler-free, so no helpful scoops, please!). And, yeah, I guess his big reason for not moving to England with Emily suddenly won't exist anymore should they take this approach. I think this dilemma really sucks, because I feel unreasonably happy for this fictional character having achieved tenure. ;)
Belphoebe wrote:
S P O I L E R
S P A C E
I don't know anything about the end either, and as I said either here or on my little website, my predictions are usually as far off as can be, but somehow I've a feeling someone thinks it's a good idea to have the big showdown at the airport
Which would be the worst part about it. Maybe Rachel won't take the job after all, since it'd not only mean taking Emma away from her father but also leaving her friends and family behind. Which would be typical for a cliffhanger, nothing happens in the end and everything just goes on.
What the hell is *tenure*?
Andr�
cookie dude apparently wrote thus:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tenure
The status of holding one's position on a permanent basis without periodic contract renewals: _a teacher granted tenure on a faculty_.
In article , [email] (cookie dude) wrote:
Applies in universities/colleges. Your first x years at any given college/university you can be fired; young associate professors accordingly do research, publish papers, etc., to try to establish themselves. When a tenured position becomes vacant, your publishing record and other work are reviewed, and you may be given tenure, which means, as Ross says, that you can't be fired (for most things -- these days, if you do something really outrageous, which would likely include sleeping with your students, you can be). The idea is to promote academic freedom and research that may be unpopular or politically difficult because you are not afraid of being fired for contrarian views.
All young academics want tenure, and if the institution they're working for makes it plain that they are *not* on a tenure track, they will generally look for a job somewhere else, where they will be.
wg
[email] wrote:
Might be a question of the difference between the UK and US (guessing from e-mail address), but the usual trajectory in the U.S. is:
*New tenure-track assistant professor spends 5-6 years building a tenure file (published articles/books, evidence of effective teaching, committee service)
*If tenure is approved, the candidate is promoted to associate prof (and, as you've said, cannot be fired short of outrageous conduct)
*Promotion from associate to full prof is a separate stage, and the timing for applyong for it varies depending on the production/ambition of the candidate.
In article , [email] (Belphoebe) wrote:
I'm American, and I thought that was pretty much what I said, without the perfection of detail.
wg
[email] wrote:
I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to give you a hard time--just wanted to clarify in case you were referring to a somewhat different system.
Do you think it would involve Toblerone? ;)
Yup.
The first five-six years for an assistant professor are considered probationary, and during that time they're expected to produce scholarship, document their teaching effectiveness, and show that they're serving on committees, advising students, etc. Then they're up for tenure review, and if they're accepted, they're promoted to associate professor, and get a raise and job security.
Belphoebe wrote:
S P O I L E R
S P A C E
Only if Joey is there too
Ah. Thanks for the info :)
"richard riley" wrote in message news:[email]...
....
But maybe for some people, tenure is a goal that once gained, they don't actually want?
I have a friend who was here in Canada for twenty years. He was on the verge of getting tenure, and he certainly could have qualified for citizenship at that point. But he wanted to go home, to the US (he was not a draft dodger, he came here voluntarily after getting out of the draft). To some extent, it seemed silly that he gave up the job security when he was able to get leave of absences pretty frequently, and silly to not get the citizenship, just in case, when he'd been here for so long. But the minute he actually decided not to bother, both were lost.
Michael
Yes, you're right--people give up tenure for all kinds of reasons. I remember reading a series of essays in _The Chronicle of Higher Education_ by a tenured professor who decided that he wanted to be closer to his/his wife's extended family in the midwest (he was on the east coast). So he gave up his tenured position for a tenure-track post at a midwestern college, starting all over again. Ultimately, he was unhappy at his new post, and he applied for his old job, got it, and started over yet again. . . .
Belphoebe apparently wrote thus:
For the next six weeks, be ready for the "top six fans' favorite episodes"--as dictated by some kind of poll I've heard nothing about.
Unless Ross somehow falls in love with Rachel again, I don't see him leaving his job for Rachel. Only a man in love lacks the kind of sanity that would keep him from quitting his job like that.
You know what that means, folks...
Guther will leave his job at Central Perk and move to Paris!! *eek*
Yup. There's sensible behavior, and the behavior of the characters on this show. ;)
Heh. How funny would that be. Rachel's unpacking in her new Paris apartment. There's a knock on her door. She opens it and finds Gunther, who says, "Rachel, I love you, I've always loved you." He embraces her while Rachel just looks puzzled. They disengage, and she says, "Aren't you gay?"
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:09:37 +0100, cookie dude wrote:
Argh, Rachel new Paris job is an awful, awful twist, I mean, can it get anymore clich�: Rachel probably leaving for Paris, Ross chasing her, c'mon writers that can't be it, btw we had such a plot already in TOW the free porn. Nevertheless, I don't see your scenario coming, and that's my last bit of faith in the writers, it would be totally out of character for Ross and Rachel would come out as the big bitch. For me, there is only one thing that can save this twist, if it emerges as sort of a master plan by "evil genius" Phoebe Buffay to get RnR back together.
Arch Stanton wrote:
I thought that too :)
He's been known to do this kind of thing. He gave up dating just like that when she threw a fit towards the end of the pregnancy, to name one example.
How would that go? I'm curious now!
On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 22:58:18 +0100, cookie dude wrote:
No, giving up dating (at that time it not even was a big deal for him), and abandoning your son, are two different things. Yes I insist, he still has a son ...
Fairly easy, with a flashback after the RnR reunion. Rachel meets Phoebe, after her dinner with Mark, at the Perk. She tells her about the new job, but also says she doesn't want to take it, because of Emma, Ross, blah, blah. Master schemer Phoebe however catches on quickly and talks Rachel into taking the job. (This way Rachel wouldn't seem as such a bitch and we know that she is easy to convince). The rest is pretty obvious, Ross realises that he is still in love with Rachel, ...
I know it's still full of clich�s, but I also think it's a neat solution to the (and again awful, awful) Paris twist. Phoebe always has been a RnR shipper and she already did something like that in the past, remember 801 TOA I do, the negative/positive pregnancy test.
cookie dude apparently wrote thus:
He might still show up... Based on Rachel's comments, it certainly seems like she's seriously considering taking the job in Paris--if she hadn't decided to take it already.
And, of course, we have this from the latest issue of Entertainment Weekly, where they interviewed the sextet, and we have this for the "Cryptic finale hint":
Jennifer Aniston: "One of us leaves." David Schwimmer: "Paris."
"Dr. Briefs" wrote in message news:...
I doubt he'll show up either. I guess by involving Mark in the plot the writers tried to take the audience back to the 3rd season when R&R were very much a couple. Don't think it worked. For one Mark has moved on and married with twins. Further he appears to be very successful and sweet as he offered Rachel who turned him down before, her dream job in Paris.
Ross on the other hand as Cookie points out demonstrated pretty much that he had not grown since 3rd season. Trice divorced he's still very much possessive and jealous, only this time with an ex-girlfriend of 7 years.
I guess Ross still has a final chance to redeem himself. Be happy for Rachel and let go.