Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "comment reply":
I thought this was place people could express their opinion. Both of you have expressed valid concerns however the Post Script comment and photograph were probably unnecessary. I also understand why a property owner isn't allowed to be property manager or office employee to an extent however it is common practice for select employees with a need to know to have access to that type of information in the business world. Divulging or misusing this information is grounds for dismissal and possible criminal charges. That being the case it wouldn't matter whether the employee lived inside or outside the community. In this scenario I can see why the rule is there and bias is a concern as is 12 month residency. I don't think there is any discrimination law being broken. Discrimination laws cover gender, age, race, religion, family status, national orgin, military status, sexual orientation, disability, body size/shape assuming you meet the job requirements. LAs rule falls into the job requirement category similar to companies not allowing their employees to take part in marketing contests, or requiring them to have a valid driver's license, or not have any DUI's, or must not have a criminal record, must submit to a drug test, etc. Having a property manager live on site may lead to salary problems, on site-on call 24/7 $$$. Is the PM a real exempt manager who can hire and fire or does the BOD need to approve? If a non-exempt manager (supervises but does not hire and fire) then all the labor laws come into effect. Who wants to take on the Labor Board? Then there is the living standard, the trailers and community by law are not approved for 12 month residency so the manager or office employee would have to have a larger 4 season manufactured home to live in and get a dispensation from the township to live on site for 12 months. 12' wides for recreation are not yet allowed so getting this to pass seems bleak. Who would pay for it? I'm sure there are several other things that come into play so this is just not a simple case of the BOD playing hard ball by not allowing a property owner or office employee to live on site.
anon -- i believe your wrong on more than one issue -- it remains to be seen---chipper
Friday, September 19, 2008
comment reply
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thank you chipper for your insightful reply. I agree the picture was in poor taste. Unfortunately some people are going to slant there comments to accommodate there own agenda with total disregard for the truth.
ReplyDelete