Jeden artykuł z KP

"Art. 282. § 1. Kto, wbrew obowiązkowi:
(...)
3) nie wydaje pracownikowi świadectwa pracy,
podlega karze grzywny od 1 000 zł do 30 000 zł."

nie mogę znaleźć tłumaczenia tego art. KP, a jest mi on potrzebny na jutro

mógłby mi ktoś pomóc? :)

z góry dzięki i szukam dalej w google'u - może coś znajdę

znalazłem już opracowanie niektórych ważniejszych artykułów z tego kodeksu, ale nie mogę znaleźć tłumaczenia tego konkretnego :(

zapomniałem o swoim tłumaczeniu:

Who against the obligation does not issue the certificate of employment to an employee shall be subject to a fine of 1,000 zl to 30,000 zl.

Przemo, here is my ‘chunk’ for you to ‘peruse’ at your leisure , haha.-:)

I’m not much of an expert on Labor Code and stuff like that but I used to dabble in reading such things back in the days. And I know that a legal language may vary form state to state , but it’s no big deal here I guess. The same line with the same meaning in TX Labor Code may read slightly different than that of , say, Maryland Labor and Employment Code.

Any employer who, in violation of his/her legal obligation ;

3) fails to furnish an employer with the certificate of employment / service , shall be subject to/liable for a fine/penalty of not less than …… nor more than / not less than ….. but not exceeding……

And of course , the above is open to any further improvement or suggestions for any would-be 'legal-beagle':) ( no offense )

*employee ...missed it

Prościej = lepiej :)

Anyone who, despite an obligation:

3) does not issue to an employee a work certificate is liable to a fine of between 1,000 zlotys and 30,000 zlotys (or PLN .... PLN .... )

Cheers!

Merix, Merix...język urzędowy ma swoje prawa...prościej w tym wypadku nie oznacza lepiej. Zapytaj się jakiegokolwiek lawyer’a....You should of known that!

O czym Ty mówisz? To jest oficjalne tłumaczenie z Kodeksu Pracy, używane przez przedsiębiorców w firmach, wydawnictwo Becka, jest bardzo dobrze przetłumaczone.

O jakie prawa Ci chodzi? Wymień je, bo jeszcze nie wiem czy atakować czy odczekać.

Hi merix:
Been a while...
Sav's suggestion "subject to/liable for" is better.

You have mixed up the meanings of "liable to" with "liable for"

liable for (responsible)
liable to (apt, likely, inclined)

Merix-
moje silnie bijace serduszko,
wpadles tu po dlugiej przerwie i od razy jest konfrontacja....

Merix - edit yer quotes, man. :-)

I shall not :)

Merix kochanie,
Co sie z Toba stalo?. Kiedys byles mily i lagodny dla wszystkich, a dzisiaj to jakis inny jestes ;-)

Mex, with this ‘to’ and ‘for’ the difference here might be subtle yet it is , in my opinion .
Look :

‘Liable for – LEGALLY responsible for paying the cost of something.’ ( implying 'definitely' , like ' no shit, buddy, you won't weasel out of paying this... :)
‘Liable to – LIKELY to be punished by law for something’ ( implying 'not necessarily', say, a judge let the guy off with that... )

This is how I see it.
What do you think ?

P.S. By the way, how are you holding up out there with all those 'built steamy legal kittens' , anyway ? Got to a 'home base' with anyone ? :))

Merix, Merix ....I was merely pointing out the fact that legal writings are different from everyday language. As good as your example is, savage’s example carries much more legal weight, whereas yours sounds like two buddies trying to figure out over a beer what Labor Code is all about...another words the language is very plain or as you put it ...prosty 
When it comes to this type of writings you want to make sure that you are very specific and leave no venue open to further interpretation. Lawyers are a savage bunch....

Cytat:Terri

Superiority complex alive and kicking well amongst Poles? It's been my observation that you can't point anything out or, God forbid, correct them...they instantly become agitated and ready to fight tooth and nail...;)

Now.....this should ruffle a feather or two...;)

Ha ha ha :)

But he's explained it: it's not his translation. He's merely quoting the author and "she's fantastic."

I wonder if this is the same lady whose translation he mentioned/quoted a few years back.

The day I met you ... :)

It will definetely ruffle mine :) Thank you for your critique, I really appreciate it.

And if I may better quote now: "only those abmitious and ready to progress treat critique as a gitf, once discovered, can search for more precious things inside"

:) However, if you want to keep on telling me that "liable for" would suit better, I will not buy it, as I know the reality and I can honestly assure you it's right and understood the way it should (not causing any dissiculties when discussed with employees).

good man...I'll buy ya a beer ;)

Ewa, nie podchwytuj pojedynczych słów, ta taktyka wyśmiewania nie działa, nigdy mnie nie sprowokujesz :) Fakt, że wyśmiewasz mnie nie dziwi, bronić się jakoś musisz, gdy chcesz mieć zawsze rację (ale kto z taką wytrzyma).

Don't promise if you can't carry it home :)

≫Lawyers are a savage bunch...( if I may :) .. of bad-ass silver-toungue shysters :))

Oh yeah, this is what we can always be certain about as for these slick “ambulance chasers”
in oxfords. But that’s what they all do, after all. Some ‘crank out’ the bill with all that gobbledygook and later some others put their ‘own balls’ on its lines in a courtroom.
Unfortunately, we need them this way or another. :)

Whatever is there, 'for' or' 'to', you're always better off staying away from 'both'.:)

Merix, I think you might be cut out to be a 'good lawyer' :) But remember, buddy, they say they start lying once they start talking.
Stick around, pal and don't fade away for that long :))

hej merix:
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Zarozumialy, as ever.:)
Welcome back, cranky pants.
How could I, mere middle-aged mortal that I am, compete with "she's fantastic"?

lol

Oh yes, you can and this is what I, in turn, can always be certain about rain or shine. :)
I got your email but let me linger to 'muse' on that for a while to gather my thoughts.

No need to rush sweets, just wanted you to know that you're in my thoughts during March.
Hmmmm, perhaps I should say, especially during March.

Weather here is awful: a mixture of freezing rain/snow.
Some (nameless) lucky soul is flying out to AZ and NV and escaping this dreary scene in a couple of days.
She had better bring me something!

>>>in my thoughts during March.

That's nice, I like it. :)

Here in 'Columbia' things stay the same aside from some sunny spells finally rolling in.
Other than that, some days are better than other and other better than some but in general it’s the same daily routine , especially when you know that “any event is only a potential” and the things can work out in an infinite number of ways in the implicate order of this holographic universe. :)

And it's comforting to know that people never change.

PS. I'll send you a postcard!

ale mi się temat rozwinął xD