I am always one to at least finish my shift if that happens then talking to my agency if it is agency work or some higher up boss if not. Never mind employers can ask you to leave at any time. After all, job hunting is a huge inconvenience. There is ONE exception to this rule: NOT GETTING PAID. I am not talking about if accounting messes up and you have to wait an extra day or two to get paid. If you are a good employer, I won't be happy, but I am understanding. I am talking refusing to pay or being even rumored to be not paying. I am not in the volunteer business for business owners. Only happened once I thought I had a part timer gig being a waiter at an over-priced tourist trap restaurant in the New Orleans French Quarter. As typical for these type of jobs, you do not get to actually wait tables and get tips till a training period is over. Somehow, I did not get the memo that this place did not have "training" but "auditions", meaning all that silverware I rolled and floors I mopped and food I ran to tables I was not getting paid for! Add to that, if somehow they did not like me, after a week I would not have a job! Now, I understand actors and actresses go to auditions and not get paid all the time. I've known a few amateur actors. But, those auditions do not include showing up for a week to work unpaid so maybe you might get hired from talking to them And waiters don't do auditions! I left immediately. I think they owed me 30 bucks for half a day's work at the minimum wage. Tried to go back threatening labor board and all that, but they would not be intimidated. They said there was no record of me being there and to get off property. I wrote it off to bad experience and started working another place that I had been interviewing with. Much better job. Question: Where did the author have the incident described? === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- Over-priced tourist trap restaurant
- Tourist Restaurant New Orleans French Quarter.
- Somewhere in New Orleans
- not enough information
Tourist Restaurant New Orleans French Quarter.

I started reading beauty blogs rather than magazines because I loved their honesty. With magazines, I was always a little suspicious that the review wasn't true, that it was more an advertorial than an honest article. Blogs seemed more honest - I never distrusted the review. Plus they went into so much more depth than magazines ever did. I think that the day I discovered beauty blogs was probably also the day my magazine addiction came to an end. BUT, there is one issue that I do have with blogs and that is editing, or grammar to be more precise. Now, don't get me wrong, it is not all blogs that I have this issue with. In fact, the majority of blogs I do read are very well written. But, I still come across a few that don't know the difference between your & you're; where, we're & were; and their, there & they're and this is a massive pet hate of mine. The odd typo doesn't bother me. We all make them. I know I do as I usually only proof read once but repeatedly writing there instead of their or where instead of were drives me mental. I just want to bust out a red pen and edit the post. The carton below, which is floating around Facebook at the moment, was my inspiration for writing this post as it really highlights how, by making the slightest grammatical error, the entire meaning of the sentence changes. I suspect that, if you are a similar grammar fanatic, you are sitting here, nodding your head, thinking 'man, that drives me crazy, too!'. If you are not a grammar fanatic then you might be thinking 'hey, what are you whinging about - it is only a couple of letters out of order'. This is why it annoys me so much - I read a sentence but it doesn't quite make sense, so I have to go back and read it again to get an understanding. As soon as I start doing that, I am no longer reading the content of the post but am instead trying to decipher what is being written. As soon as I have stumbled over a few sentences I give up and stop reading. Question: What is most likely her job outside of reading blogs? === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- Regional Sales Executive for Zillow
- Teaching English
- Strength and Conditioning Coach
- not enough information

Answer: Teaching English

The U.S. Supreme Court plunged into the politically messy issue of redrawing congressional and legislative districts Tuesday, in a case that could have profound implications for both major political parties for years to come. The high court heard oral arguments in a case brought by Democratic voters in Wisconsin. They argued that a Republican redistricting plan for the state assembly was so overtly partisan that it violated constitutional protections of freedom of speech and equal protection under the law for Wisconsin voters. A lower federal court sided with the challengers last year and against Republican state officials in Wisconsin. Officials argued Tuesday that they had not violated any constitutional rights when they drew up new boundaries for state assembly districts. "Our legislature followed traditional redistricting criteria, which is what they have been required to do and we think they followed that and that the justices will agree," Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel told reporters in front of the court following the oral arguments. The process of state legislatures redrawing congressional and legislative district boundaries has been enmeshed in politics for two centuries. Early on, the process was referred to as "gerrymandering," where one party or the other tries to gain an electoral advantage by redrawing district boundaries to maximize their voting clout. Republicans have had success in several states in redrawing congressional and legislative voting districts and that has helped them maintain their majority in the House of Representatives. Democrats have come under fire as well for partisan maps in states where they control the legislature, like Maryland and Massachusetts. During Tuesday's oral arguments, the more liberal high court justices seemed open to the case brought by Democratic voters. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said a ruling in favor of the Republican districting plan in Wisconsin would encourage others to stack the deck against their political opponents. "What becomes of the... Question: Oral arguments for the case lasted === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- 4 hours
- 1 hour
- 30 minutes
- not enough information
1 hour