“生活版灌水专贴”uker第一长贴！大家来灌水！

小园花乱飞

以下是引用bettinaton在2003-8-23 22:44:00的发言：
gg已经在灌水啦

那时候谁都喜欢灌

小园花乱飞

以下是引用vtcc在2003-8-23 22:45:00的发言：
偶来啦～灌啥子好捏？

可爱小斑竹~~现在回国了假期去了

小园花乱飞

以下是引用bettinaton在2003-8-23 22:49:00的发言：
应该8会吧？！怕怕滴说，问问宝宝和eric哥哥，他们是斑竹滴说！偶们是实习滴！

现在都是正是的了

小园花乱飞

以下是引用bettinaton在2003-8-23 22:49:00的发言：
偶也不要被拿走小兔子555555555555555

没有被拿走

小园花乱飞

以下是引用josiejin在2003-8-23 23:10:00的发言：
偶喜欢机器猫~~

一个现在消失了的斑竹

小园花乱飞

以下是引用vtcc在2003-8-23 23:14:00的发言：
我爱喵喵，我爱宝宝，我爱瓜瓜，我。。。

我爱大米

小园花乱飞

以下是引用vtcc在2003-8-23 23:16:00的发言：
哎呀，大斑来了。。。喵喵，偶怕。。。

到现在都不知道谁是大斑

小园花乱飞

以下是引用vtcc在2003-8-23 23:30:00的发言：
哎呀，不好意思，和国内同学聊得太忙了，同时和５个聊，呵呵，这里都灌了６页了呀？

很明显聊天水平太差了

小园花乱飞

以下是引用bettinaton在2003-8-23 22:58:00的发言：
9494，斑竹哥哥姐姐们应该可以理解滴吧？？！！

理解万岁

小园花乱飞

以下是引用蔡爽在2003-8-23 23:33:00的发言：
灌水需要执照吗？

我可以给你发一个

小园花乱飞

以下是引用蔡爽在2003-8-23 23:35:00的发言：
多亏我这里是宽带~

哈哈我也是

小园花乱飞

以下是引用霞霞猪在2004-3-25 9:28:00的发言：
[quote]以下是引用小园花乱飞在2004-3-25 3:57:00的发言：
[quote]以下是引用bryantail在2004-3-24 2:30:00的发言：
  去灌水区啊！

   哪里有好多话题的。
  

本来我们人就少~~`你还给我分流~~~~~
[/quote]

这里的人真的那么少？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？
[/quote]怎么说呢，我们板块有季节性，因为都是大家要出国了，有什么问题来这里问，等都过来以后，感觉这里就没什么用处了，就都不来了~~~~~

小园花乱飞

以下是引用bettinaton在2004-3-26 2:00:00的发言：
我们的论坛还很新，当然不如人家老的论坛人多了，不过还需要我们大家的共同努力才行哦！！嘿嘿（有种好老气的感觉哦）
来，花花说两句~~~大家别扔鸡蛋给他哦~~~

我岂止说了两句阿~~你看我都灌了多少阿~~`

主要是我们这边人的流动性太大~~都是问了问题就跑~~~~~~~然后感觉这里没用了，就走了~~~~灌水那变专业性没我们强~~~

小园花乱飞

3.        Statutes.
The need to distinguish between employee and independent contractor is important for the purposes of very many modern statutes.  For example: the employment protection act, 1978 and the social security act, 1975, as benefits and contributi##被过滤## vary according to status.
To test the question of whether a person is an employee or an independent contractor, we can c##被过滤##ider:

小园花乱飞

These are useful tests, but not always conclusive.  The courts have their peculiar methods and those c##被过滤##idered most reliable are:
1.        The control test - does one person have the right to control the work done by the other, as happens with employer and employee?  
See Stephen v Thurso police commissioners (1876): Stephen was injured in an accident when he fell over some rubbish lying in the street.  He maintained that the police should have had it cleared or at least marked with lights.  The police claimed that they had instructed a contractor to remove the rubbish, and therefore the contractor was liable, not them.  The court ruled, however, that since the police had retained control over the execution of the contractor’s work, they were liable in damages, as the contractor was, in effect, an employee.
In Scottish Insurance Commissioners v Church of Scotland (1914) the court was asked to rule on the position of assistant ministers of the church.  It held that they were not employees since they were not subject to the direct control and direction of a master under a contract of service.