S'funny because a few months ago, before I was robbed of my job, one of the big question in the tourism field was "what should we do about GDPR and logging regarding WiFi access in rented cottages and the like ?". No experts had any answers and it all came down to a laissez-faire attitude.
My stance was: just rent out a WiFi portal for 5 bucks a month to offload the responsibilities on a third party. Just in case.
The fact that the UMIH hides behind a mention of this problem in a newsletter speak volumes of how well informed they are and what services they bring to adherents.
I can't answer to the comment that got flagged so here's what I wrote (sorry for the murder of the English language):
> I was working for a regional public agency but as a contractor not as a civil servant. My job was budgeted and paid for by a a higher up federal/state agency (country level).
> This job was part of a broader state program to bring some specific skills to some lower agencies and ease the connection between agencies (on a networking level and on a per project basis level).
> This year, that regional public agency was supposed to be absorbed and merged into a sister regional public agency. All those agencies are managed and run by politicians (public sector). So I got my end of employment paper at the beginning of the year, kept on working for three months and then I was supposed to be transfered/rehired - still as a contractor - to the new agency (which is in the same building, do the same work, with the same people, it's just label shuffling).
> Except one week before that I got a call from one of the cronies to let met know that they had budgetary problems and rather prefer to use the budget to pay someone who is already there. That person being - ohohoho - the best friend of our new agency director. It's a public agency, they don't bump into budget problems in march. I cost them 0 bucks because it's financed by another state agency. And yes, that person was severely lacking the necessary skills to do my job and to follow up with the current projects.
> I alerted the higher up agency, they didn't take it well at all because the budget was also used to pay for certifications (which the friend of the director should retake), there were some projects at their level where I had the networking and relationships needed and really they didn't like that the lower agency got rid of one of their element like that and that the lower agency thought they could whatever they wanted with `my ` budget. They don't like ton invest into people for years and see them go, whatever the reasons.
> To be honest, that program was on shaky legs but I was one of the good elements. From the people at the top of the chain (remember I am talking public sector, I went to the highest point) I was told that they had done everything so that our team wouldn't be unemployed in the middle of a pandemic. They had budgeted things so that we didn't lose our job in very difficult times. That's why I use the word `robbed`.
> So now the whole program is scraped, that director's friend is still on half time and the lower agency has a hard time getting their project's budgets approved by the higher up agency.
> And I find a new job, half time though, and I am starting tomorrow so I got that going for me.
> But I am really bitter because I loved that job and the projects were really specific and I was fast tracked at some point to be fully employed as a public servant by the higher up agency which would have meant a much stable life and perspective to buy/build a house, have a baby, etc.
It's a valid use of the word. Just like in these sentences:
Joan was robbed of the use of her legs after the car accident.
Or
John was robbed of the opportunity to live a normal life when he was falsely convicted of murder.
Something was taken from OP, Joan, and John. In OP's case, probably his job due to the collapse of the tourism industry during this ongoing pandemic. Nobody needs to have gained something in return for this to be true.
I tend not to begrudge folks the right to be bitter or feel disenfranchised at the world. We all get the butt end of things in our own time, and it's never fun losing it.
The market shifting, leaving one high and dry, while inevitable, should not obligate someone to be chipper and happy-go-lucky about it.
What else do you call a fluid market change in reaction to a obstruction in the form of collective action undertaken by the State? The State doesn't exist separate from the Market, nor does the Market exist separate from the State. Both underpin the others existence. To see it any other way is folly, or at least the least conceivably useful way of trying to forecast probable outcomes on any scale appreciably large.
You see a market failure, I reject your perception of a particular vein of economic activity remaining worthwhile in perpetuity as an accurate understanding of a Market to fail, and instead accept that all economic activity is fluid and necessarily reactive to physical and political constraints.
Just look at Turnips or Onions to break yourself of a mistaken belief that Markets don't inherently rely on the State to price in what's practical; and hell, half the point of a State is to make the effective price of something so high, people don't do it.
Sure thing, but wouldn't it be better to then just say "I feel sad, angry or bitter about the job I thought I could have for an indeterminate amount of time"?
Using words like 'robbed' just hides both facts (no the job was not robbed, yes you are sad/angry about the situation). And by hiding facts like that we end up with populism and lies.
My stance was: just rent out a WiFi portal for 5 bucks a month to offload the responsibilities on a third party. Just in case.
The fact that the UMIH hides behind a mention of this problem in a newsletter speak volumes of how well informed they are and what services they bring to adherents.