@劳动者 岁末年初求职换岗须慧眼辨“坑”******
@劳动者 求职换岗须慧眼辨“坑”
岁末年初,不少劳动者开始谋划新一年的工作,互联网招聘网站浏览量也开始增多。“保障就业”“高薪就业”的承诺可信吗?“工资没发,先交了一堆‘工杂费’”这事儿靠谱吗?招聘广告上的工资数额与实发工资不一样怎么办?近日,北京市第二中级人民法院发布典型案例,提醒劳动者求职应聘时,小心入坑。
岗前培训变成“培训贷”
徐某利用其经营的某软件公司、某信息公司,虚构招聘员工事实,在多个互联网招聘网站上发布招聘信息,主动邀请求职者进行面试,并虚假承诺高薪,后提出需要岗前培训,诱骗求职者签署培训协议,收取培训费用。徐某以保障就业为诱饵,使用签订培训及安置上岗协议的手段,诱骗应聘者贷款参加其公司的有偿培训,骗取应聘者贷款共600余万元。徐某因犯合同诈骗罪,被法院判处有期徒刑12年。
实践中,个别不法分子通过公司化运作、采用“招转培”模式等虚构招聘事实,诱骗劳动者贷款参加所谓的培训,骗取求职者缴纳手续费、培训费、违约金等费用。法官提醒,劳动者应理性对待用人单位招聘过程中的承诺,慎重对待各类“培训贷”。在发现被骗后,应第一时间报警,通过法律途径维护自身合法权益。
未上岗先交钱
2019年5月至7月间,邱某伙同刘某、张某等人,在北京市丰台区某大厦租用办公室,通过招聘网站以“某某集团”名义发布虚假招聘信息,诱骗应聘者来公司面试、签订试用期劳动合同,通过设置考试、考核等环节“刷人”,以收取被害人培训费、服装费、门禁卡费、违约金、烟钱等理由骗取应聘者钱财涉案金额8万余元。邱某等人以非法占有为目的,以虚假招工的方式,多次骗取他人财物,数额巨大,已构成诈骗罪,最后被法院以诈骗罪判处二年有期徒刑,并处罚金。
劳动合同法第九条规定,用人单位招用劳动者,不得扣押劳动者的居民身份证和其他证件,不得要求劳动者提供担保或者以其他名义向劳动者收取财物。第八十四条规定,用人单位违反本法规定,以担保或者其他名义向劳动者收取财物的,由劳动行政部门责令限期退还劳动者本人,并以每人500元以上2000元以下的标准处以罚款;给劳动者造成损害的,应当承担赔偿责任。
实践中,一些用人单位以各种名义向劳动者收取一定数额的钱款或财物,损害劳动者的合法权益。法官提示,劳动者需擦亮双眼,对用人单位巧立名目收取费用的行为勇敢说“不”,并可向人社部门投诉。遇不法分子以非法占有为目的、通过虚假招工方式骗取财物的,应及时向公安机关举报。
招聘广告不等于劳动合同
杨某自2019年9月2日入职某石化公司工作,其间某石化公司未为杨某缴纳社会保险。2020年3月11日,杨某以某石化公司未缴纳社会保险、未及时足额支付劳动报酬为由提出辞职。杨某申请劳动仲裁,要求某石化公司支付劳动报酬差额37800.95元、解除劳动合同应支付的经济补偿金10400.47元等。劳动仲裁部分支持其诉求后,杨某不服起诉到法院。
双方争议焦点为杨某的月工资收入。某石化公司提交2019年9月2日的劳动合同一份,其上约定月工资为3500元,杨某对该劳动合同的真实性不认可,主张其月工资为8500元,并提交招工简章原件及网站截图予以证实。某石化公司对上述证据的真实性不认可,认为无用人单位公章及相关负责人的签字,系单方证据,薪资待遇应按双方劳动合同的约定。
法院经审理认为,涉案劳动合同加盖某石化公司的公章,并有杨某的签字手印。经法院释明,杨某不申请笔迹鉴定,也未就该合同存在欺诈提供证据予以证实。用人单位的招聘广告在法律上只是一种要约邀请,并不具有劳动合同的法律效力,故杨某主张以月工资8500元的标准计算工资差额及经济补偿金,法院不予支持。法院最终按照3500元的标准判决某石化公司支付杨某解除劳动合同经济补偿。
民法典第四百七十三条规定,要约邀请是希望他人向自己发出要约的意思表示。拍卖公告、招标公告、招股说明书、债券募集办法、基金募集说明书、商业广告和宣传、寄送的价目表等为要约邀请。商业广告和宣传等为要约邀请。如其内容符合要约条件的,可以构成要约。
法官介绍,劳动者若要用人单位兑现招聘广告中的承诺,应该要求用人单位将招聘广告中的内容写入劳动合同中,以便维权时提供相应依据。在劳动合同履行过程中,劳动者应关注薪酬发放、社保缴纳等涉及自身重大利益的事项,是否与用人单位最初承诺一致,如不一致应及时与用人单位交涉,并注意保存相关证据,通过法律手段及时维权。
周倩
中新网评:处理核污水绝不是日本自家私事******
中新网北京1月19日电(蒋鲤)日本政府近日称,将于2023年春夏期间开始向海洋排放经过处理的福岛第一核电站核污水。日本罔顾国内民众及周边国家的屡屡反对,企图将核污水“一倒了之”,把一件关乎全球海洋生态环境和公众健康的事当成了自家私事。
2011年,福岛核电站事故发生后,大量放射性物质泄漏到大气层和太平洋,对周围环境造成了难以逆转的伤害,数十万人被迫撤离该地区。时至今日,作为日本邻国之一的韩国仍未解除福岛海鲜禁令。
日本以核污水存储能力即将达到上限为由,在2021年4月13日,正式决定将福岛第一核电站核污水排入太平洋。过去一年多,日本政府和东京电力公司一直在持续推进核污水排海计划。
日本政府辩称,这些核污水经多核素处理系统(ALPS)处理后很安全,甚至“可以喝”,这样的表态无疑在愚弄大众。
事实上,经过处理的核污水仍含有多种放射性物质,核污水一旦排放入海就无法回收,长期来看,将会给海洋生态带来难以估量的潜在威胁,最终危害人类健康。
因此,核污水排海计划推出后,遭到日本民众强烈反对。日本《朝日新闻》2022年3月公布的问卷调查显示,福岛县、宫城县和岩手县受访的42个市町村长中,约六成反对东京电力公司福岛第一核电站核污水排放入海。日本全国渔业协会联合会也多次申明立场,反对该计划。
日本政府认为,核污水排海是最便宜、最省事的解决方案,但此举却将周边国家乃至全世界置于核污染风险中。太平洋非日本一家之海,核污水会随着洋流流动,其影响势必会跨越国界,危害周边国家乃至整个国际社会的公共福祉和利益。
《韩国经济新闻》发文称,相关研究认为,福岛核污水如果排放入海,约7个月后将到达济州等韩国海域,该国水产业和旅游业将遭受相当大的损失。
德国南极海洋机构也曾发出警告,若日本将所有核污水排入海中,不到半年,整个太平洋都将面临高度辐射威胁,包括远在大洋另一端的美国。太平洋地区人民更是对日本该计划持反对意见。
日本作为《联合国海洋法公约》缔约国,有义务保护海洋环境。然而,在核污水排海方案的正当性、核污水数据的可靠性、净化装置的有效性、环境影响的不确定性等问题上,日本未能作出科学、可信的说明。
国际原子能机构技术工作组虽已三次赴日实地考察评估,但尚未就日排海方案的安全性给出结论,并且对日本提出诸多澄清要求和整改意见。在此情况下,日本仍执意推进核污水排海工程建设,这是极不负责任的行为。
太平洋不是日本的下水道,日本必须正视各方合理关切,在与周边国家等相关利益方和国际原子能机构充分协商后,制定合理的核污水处理方案。日本也要着眼长远,若只顾眼前,执意将核污水排放入海,不仅其自身,周边国家乃至全世界都将为之买单,其后果必将会危害数代人。
Fukushima water disposal by no means Japan’s own business
By John Lee
(ECNS) -- Japan has announced it will release treated wastewater from the wrecked Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the Pacific Ocean this year.
Although Fukushima wastewater disposal affects global marine ecological environment protection and public health, Japan has turned a deaf ear to domestic and international opposition to dumping the contaminated water into the sea, treating the "global" matter as its own business.
The Fukushima accident in 2011 had sent large quantities of radiation into the atmosphere and the Pacific Ocean, causing irreversible damage to the surrounding environment, and hundreds of thousands of people were forced to evacuate the area. South Korea still maintains its import ban on Japanese seafood from areas affected by the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
On April 13, 2021, Japan announced it had decided to discharge contaminated radioactive wastewater in Fukushima Prefecture into the sea due to dwindling storage space, with the Japanese government and plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc. promoting the release plan over the past year.
The Japanese government argues that the water treated by an advanced liquid processing system, or ALPS, is safe and drinkable, which is undoubtedly fooling the public.
In fact, the treated wastewater still includes a variety of radioactive substances and can’t be recycled once discharged into the sea, which will pose a great threat to marine ecology and ultimately endanger human health in the long run.
Therefore, the discharge plan has been strongly opposed in Japan. According to a questionnaire conducted by The Asahi Shimbun, nearly 60 percent of mayors of 42 municipalities in Iwate, Miyagi and Fukushima prefectures oppose the discharge plan. The National Fisheries Cooperative Federation of Japan has also repeatedly stated its opposition in public.
The Japanese government believes that dumping Fukushima wastewater into the sea is the cheapest and most convenient solution, but neighboring countries and even the whole world will be at risk of nuclear pollution.
The Pacific Ocean doesn’t belong to Japan and the wastewater flow along oceanic currents will surely break boundaries and endanger public welfare and the interests of neighboring countries and even the international community.
The Korea Economic Daily reported that related research concluded that if contaminated water from Fukushima is released into the ocean, it would only take seven months for the contaminated water to reach the shores of Jeju Island, with the country's aquaculture and tourism suffering considerable losses.
According to the calculation of a German marine scientific research institute, radioactive materials will spread to most of the Pacific Ocean within half a year from the date of discharge, and the U.S. and Canada will be affected by nuclear pollution. People in the Pacific region also oppose the discharge plan.
As a participant of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Japan has the obligation of protecting the marine environment.
However, it hasn’t offered a full and convincing explanation on issues like the legitimacy of the discharge plan, the reliability of data on the nuclear-contaminated water, the efficacy of the treatment system or the uncertainty of environmental impact.
Though the IAEA has yet to complete a comprehensive review after three investigations in Japan, the Japanese side has been pushing through the approval process for its discharge plan and even started building facilities for the discharge. It is rather irresponsible for Japan to act against public opinion at home and concerns abroad.
The Pacific Ocean is not a private Japanese sewer. The country must seriously heed the voices of the international community and make a reasonable plan for the Fukushima wastewater disposal after full consultation with stakeholders and international agencies.
If it only seeks instant interest and insists on discharging the contaminated water into the sea, not only itself, but also its neighboring countries and the entire world will pay for the decision and several generations will be forced to bear the consequence.
(文图:赵筱尘 巫邓炎) [责编:天天中] 阅读剩余全文() ![]() 天天彩票地图 |