Consequence Culture - Gina Carano, Colin Kaepernick, The Dixie Chicks and Jane Fonda

[JoeB131]

Personally, the only people I know who work for drug addicts are other drug addicts.

Maybe you should see someone about your drug issues, Joe. Seriously, man, I care about you...

Actually, um, no. This guy wasn't the owner when I was hired. His parents were. Then they retired and Nose Candy and Bible Boy ran the company into the ground in two years.

Well, nice to see you admit what's already known; that you weren't a good manager...

Again, I did my part fine...

The problem was, of course, that the market changed entirely, from independent shops to chain stores... which means they ran out of customers. Six other distributors in the same industry also went out of business in the same period.

See, the fatal flaw in your argument in favor of unions is that you make the blanket assumption that anyone who owns a company where the workers aren't unionized is evil, and that's just not true at all.

I make the blanket assumption about human nature. People abuse power if there isn't a check on it. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

If anything, I've seen more abuses in smaller companies because they've really got less controls than larger ones.

Go through that list of everything my company does for its employees and tell me what's evil. Tell me where a union rep could negotiate them a better deal and I'll show you the list of things that evaporate once the employees unionize.

That's an honest challenge which I don't think you're up to.

Since you won't tell me the name of your company, that's a moot point.

You're fuckin' delusional.

We've been having a discussion and you see that as stalking?

Uh, we had the discussion on another thread, then you showed up on this one to continue the conversation, which has nothing to do with the topic of cancel culture. (And it's the only thread I've started in a couple of weeks.)

 

[Canon Shooter]

Actually, um, no. This guy wasn't the owner when I was hired. His parents were. Then they retired and Nose Candy and Bible Boy ran the company into the ground in two years.

Well, the writing was on the wall. If you were a bit more astute and actually paid attention, you'd have seen that.

You chose to stay with a company run by a drug addict. That's undeniable...

Again, I did my part fine...

Well, yes, if I suppose your "part" was helping a drug addict run the company into the ground...

The problem was, of course, that the market changed entirely, from independent shops to chain stores... which means they ran out of customers. Six other distributors in the same industry also went out of business in the same period.

So says you.

What companies were those?

I make the blanket assumption about human nature.

And that's what makes you ignorant and stupid...

People abuse power if there isn't a check on it. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

More nonsense...

If anything, I've seen more abuses in smaller companies because they've really got less controls than larger ones.

Um, okay.

Assuming that there will be abuses in every smaller company is stupid...

Since you won't tell me the name of your company, that's a moot point.

No, it's not. You can certainly tell if something is good or bad without knowing the name of the company. If you can't do that, then you're nearly as smart or talented as you'd like us to believe.

But you and I both know the truth as to why you won't do it. You won't do it because you know that a union shop wouldn't have benefits and perks that good. You just can't be honest enough to admit it...

Uh, we had the discussion on another thread, then you showed up on this one to continue the conversation, which has nothing to do with the topic of cancel culture. (And it's the only thread I've started in a couple of weeks.)

And the topic was one I have interest in, so I contributed. As threads will often do, this one has gone back down the road traveled in that other thread.

If you see that as "stalking" then you've got some pretty fucking severe emotional issues...

 

[JoeB131]

Well, the writing was on the wall. If you were a bit more astute and actually paid attention, you'd have seen that.

You chose to stay with a company run by a drug addict. That's undeniable...

One who was 90 miles away and I didn't interact with every day.... But, yes, that was my first hard lesson that most business owners are kind of scumbags... I'm sure you can relate. I was actually more offended by his brother, who was the bible thumper.

And the topic was one I have interest in, so I contributed.

Really? Because, frankly, you added nothing to it and didn't even discuss the topic.

No, it's not. You can certainly tell if something is good or bad without knowing the name of the company. If you can't do that, then you're nearly as smart or talented as you'd like us to believe.

Actually, everything you've described is bad, from your hiring people who steal from you to firing people for their conversations to apparently having employees taking swings at each other.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Actually, everything you've described is bad, from your hiring people who steal from you to firing people for their conversations to apparently having employees taking swings at each other.

Really?

From an earlier post of mine:

"See, again, my people are happy. I keep them happy. They're paid better than most in the same position at other companies. They've got benefits out the ass, 401K (and the company matches that to 8%; the norm is 6%), two weeks paid vacation after their first year (as opposed to one week, which is standard), and that's in addition to the shutdowns we do around the Christmas holidays and 4th of July), employee purchase program (they can buy our products at manufacturer cost plus 15%; which is simply unheard of in the industry).

Every employee in the company has received an annual bonus equal to double their pre-tax monthly pay for the last nine years.

We offer three $10,000 college scholarships a year to children of our employees (they're awarded every year at our Christmas party). If an employee wants to go back to school, and his or her course of study is applicable to the workplace and will increase that employees value to the company, the company covers half the tuition and the cost of all books."

What's bad there?

What do you see there that could be viewed as being detrimental to an employee's morale or well being?

That's what I do for my employees. And every bit of it would go away if my employees were unionized. My people don't need, nor do they want, to be unionized. You ignored it the first time I posted it because you have no argument against it. You know a union shop would never be that good.

In my years of owning two businesses, I've one single instance where an employee went rogue and one single instance where two guys got into a fight.

Two instances in 15 years. Somehow, you see that as a failing track record, yet you weren't even talented enough to keep a core team together for two years.

If you want to see an unqualified example of failure, look in a mirror. You hate the fact that I can run a successful business with happy employees without the stench of a union being involved...

 

[JoeB131]

Really?

From an earlier post of mine:

You also said that you keep them from talking about politics or religion because you don't want them fighting.

Frankly, I've never seen fighting anywhere that isn't already a tension-filled toxic work place.

In my years of owning two businesses, I've one single instance where an employee went rogue and one single instance where two guys got into a fight.

Funny, I've been in the post military workplace for 30 years now, I've never seen a physical fight in a workplace and never heard about an employee going rogue.

 

[JoeB131]

Two instances in 15 years. Somehow, you see that as a failing track record, yet you weren't even talented enough to keep a core team together for two years.

You missed the point of that story. The point was, I was able to end high turnover on that team and make it cohesive. Of course, Nose Candy and Bible Boy eventually bankrupted the whole company... but that wasn't on me.

That's what I do for my employees. And every bit of it would go away if my employees were unionized. My people don't need, nor do they want, to be unionized. You ignored it the first time I posted it because you have no argument against it. You know a union shop would never be that good.

Why would any of that go away? Frankly, My dad was unionized, and his companies did family things all the time.

As far as a 401K, I'd take a union pension over a 401K any day of the week.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Funny, I've been in the post military workplace for 30 years now, I've never seen a physical fight in a workplace and never heard about an employee going rogue.

Well, shit, then I guess it can't ever happen.

You're a fuckin' dunce...

 

[Canon Shooter]

You missed the point of that story. The point was, I was able to end high turnover on that team and make it cohesive. Of course, Nose Candy and Bible Boy eventually bankrupted the whole company... but that wasn't on me.

You were quite clear when you stated that you couldn't keep your core team together for even two years.

There's not a lot to be proud of there...

Why would any of that go away?

Because if a union is going to come in and organize in my shop, they're going to do it with the absolute minimum in place, that's why. My people have it pretty damn good, and they know it, though, so there's exactly zero threat of my people unionizing. It won't happen.

But you still haven't answered my question. You're attempting to paint a picture of my company as being a bad place to work. Well, if that's true (which it isn't, but I'll play along), please explain how that list of things I do for my employees falls in line with my company being a bad place to work.

Frankly, My dad was unionized, and his companies did family things all the time.

"Family things"? Like what?

As far as a 401K, I'd take a union pension over a 401K any day of the week.

And there are plenty of people; about 150 or so who work for me, who are perfectly happy with their 401K. Your desire to have a union pension instead is hardly compelling enough to make anyone want to change what they have.

Unions serve no real purpose, and I don't know that I've ever known a union boss who shouldn't have been in jail...

 

[ESay]

That's what I do for my employees. And every bit of it would go away if my employees were unionized. My people don't need, nor do they want, to be unionized. You ignored it the first time I posted it because you have no argument against it. You know a union shop would never be that good

What you do for your employees, if that is true, shows that you are a decent employer and care for people. But the question is much wider than that. Employers should have a possibility to protect their rights. I think that a situation in which an employee can be fired because his boss have bad mood today or his favorite team lost an event isnt appropriate.

There should be a protection. And I am not talking about unions. There should be a clear regulation that protects workers' rights.

 

[JoeB131]

Well, shit, then I guess it can't ever happen.

You're a fuckin' dunce...

I'm sure it can happen. The question you have to ask is WHY does it happen to you.

My guess is, you aren't capable of that level of self-awareness.

You were quite clear when you stated that you couldn't keep your core team together for even two years.

There's not a lot to be proud of there...

Do you have English comprehension problems? My team was fine... Until Nose Candy ran the company into the ground.

And there are plenty of people; about 150 or so who work for me, who are perfectly happy with their 401K. Your desire to have a union pension instead is hardly compelling enough to make anyone want to change what they have.

Any fool who is happy with a 401K really can't be reasoned with. Did they all get amnesia in 2008?

 

[Canon Shooter]

What you do for your employees, if that is true, shows that you are a decent employer and care for people.

Oh, I do. Very much...

Employers should have a possibility to protect their rights.

Thank you. We are in total agreement on this point.

Idiots like Joe would rather live in a world where I, as the employer, have my rights dictated to me by my employees union...

I think that a situation in which an employee can be fired because his boss have bad mood today or his favorite team lost an event isnt appropriate.

I joke about "at will" employment, but it's really very simple: At-will means that an employer can terminate an employee at any time for any reason, except an illegal one, or for no reason without incurring legal liability. Likewise, an employee is free to leave a job at any time for any or no reason with no adverse legal consequences.

So, no, I actually can't fire an employee if the Jets lose (again) or if I'm in a bad mood and not be held legally accountable for it. But, if someone is consistently five minutes late coming back from lunch, or continually wears inappropriate attire, they certainly can be fired...

There should be a protection. And I am not talking about unions. There should be a clear regulation that protects workers' rights.

What employee rights would you like to see protected?

And what employer rights would you like to see protected?

 

[Canon Shooter]

I'm sure it can happen. The question you have to ask is WHY does it happen to you.

It doesn't, dumb ass.

It happened. It doesn't "happen". Once in each instance; a guy goes rogue and there was a fight. To say "WHY does it happen to you" infers that it continues to happen.

But you're a liar, so approaching this conversation with any level of honesty is of no interest to you...

Do you have English comprehension problems? My team was fine... Until Nose Candy ran the company into the ground.

Sure...

Any fool who is happy with a 401K really can't be reasoned with. Did they all get amnesia in 2008?

Nothing's bulletproof, including pensions. Ask those city employees in San Diego how they fared when thousands of them lost their pensions.

Personally, my 401K is doing pretty fucking good at the moment. Sure, the market goes up and down, but that's understood going in. I have a good deal of gold, as well.

Why do you continue to ignore the list of things that I do for my employees? It's rather apparent that, as a proponent of unions, you're quite certain that those things could never be negotiated with an employer. You're just afraid to admit that I treat my employers far better than any union ever would. My people want for nothing. A union would be detrimental to them and they know it.

See, not only would I not want them to unionize, they don't want to unionize. Despite whatever intellectual pablum you belch up, that's what tells me I'm doing right by my people/...

 

[JoeB131]

It happened. It doesn't "happen". Once in each instance; a guy goes rogue and there was a fight. To say "WHY does it happen to you" infers that it continues to happen.

The point is, it happened to you, which isn't a very good description of your "leadership". I mean, I had some truly shitty managers... but nothing like that.

See, not only would I not want them to unionize, they don't want to unionize. Despite whatever intellectual pablum you belch up, that's what tells me I'm doing right by my people/...

I'm sure if any employee ever talked about unionizing, you'd fire him.

 

[Canon Shooter]

The point is, it happened to you, which isn't a very good description of your "leadership". I mean, I had some truly shitty managers... but nothing like that.

Each instance occurred once.

Hundreds of employees over 15 years. That's not too bad a record.

Oh, and it only happened at one of my two companies...

I'm sure if any employee ever talked about unionizing, you'd fire him.

That's like saying if a monkey flew out of your ass you'd climb the Eiffel Tower.

It's not gonna' happen. o one in my companies are remotely interested in unions beyond how bad things would be made by the presence of a union.

You know I how I can tell that a union would make things shitty? Because I listed a number of things that I do for my people, which I absolutely do not have to do, and you continually ignore them. You're afraid to address them. You know a union could never get them such things. Despite your support for the idea of unions, you're just not smart enough to out-do an employer who truly cares about his people,. You're just too big a fucking coward to admit it...

 

[JoeB131]

You know I how I can tell that a union would make things shitty? Because I listed a number of things that I do for my people, which I absolutely do not have to do, and you continually ignore them. You're afraid to address them. You know a union could never get them such things. Despite your support for the idea of unions, you're just not smart enough to out-do an employer who truly cares about his people,. You're just too big a fucking coward to admit it...

Guy, the monster never looks in the mirror and sees a monster. Frankly, everything you've posted here indicates you'd be an nightmare to work for. That you've managed to find people you can bully into compliance doesn't impress me.

Nothing you've listed is really very impressive compared to the benefits of a union, which is workers' protections and job security.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Guy, the monster never looks in the mirror and sees a monster. Frankly, everything you've posted here indicates you'd be an nightmare to work for. That you've managed to find people you can bully into compliance doesn't impress me.

I've no doubt that I'd be a nightmare for you to work for, simplpy because you want me, as an employer, to have no protections when it comes employing people. Here's a tip for you, nipplehead: My businesses don't exist to make sure people have jobs. My businesses exist to make money, and they do. In return, my employees are compensated well for their efforts...

Nothing you've listed is really very impressive compared to the benefits of a union, which is workers' protections and job security.

You are such a lying little cowardly bitch.

My employees already enjoy job security. They don't need to pay some inflated union payola to get them that. But here's the difference between you and me:

If an employee is a fuck up, I'll fire him for being a fuck up. You, on the other hand, think I should keep him employed and on the payroll. That's why you couldn't keep your "core team" together: you're all too willing to work with fuck-ups. I'm not. My employees know that, if they do their job, their job is 100% safe. They also know that, if they fuck up, their job isn't 100% safe.

That's how it's supposed to work.

For the record, I've talked to people who are union, and they're blown away when they hear the list of benefits and perks my employees enjoy.

If you could unionize my employees, what would you want me, as the employer, to agree to? Honestly, I don't think you've got the sack to answer this, either...

 

[JoeB131]

I've no doubt that I'd be a nightmare for you to work for, simplpy because you want me, as an employer, to have no protections when it comes employing people. Here's a tip for you, nipplehead: My businesses don't exist to make sure people have jobs. My businesses exist to make money, and they do. In return, my employees are compensated well for their efforts...

And that's the problem.

Businesses exist to provide goods and services... These could be done just as well by employee-managed enterprises than capitalist managed ones.

The country worked a lot better when it was mostly unionized, workers had protections and people could work a job for 25 years and get a pension.

Now, that you've found a bunch of battered housewives to put up with your behavior really doesn't reflect well.

If an employee is a fuck up, I'll fire him for being a fuck up. You, on the other hand, think I should keep him employed and on the payroll. That's why you couldn't keep your "core team" together: you're all too willing to work with fuck-ups. I'm not. My employees know that, if they do their job, their job is 100% safe. They also know that, if they fuck up, their job isn't 100% safe.

Uh, guy, you said you'd fire people for having conversations you didn't approve of. I know you've tried to walk that back and say you don't do it very often, but that doesn't sound like it's related to job performance at all.

The problem with that company is that they paid people shit, they didn't have the proper working equipment... I was able to make those changes, and I had to fight with Nose Candy and his minions to get them.

yes, keeping people around is better than having to train a new person every month, which is exactly where we were at up to that point.

If you could unionize my employees, what would you want me, as the employer, to agree to? Honestly, I don't think you've got the sack to answer this, either...

Well, to start with, you actually have to show cause before you fire someone, and they have an appeals process.

Of course, you'd never agree to that.

 

[Canon Shooter]

And that's the problem.

Businesses exist to provide goods and services... These could be done just as well by employee-managed enterprises than capitalist managed ones.

Well, by saying could be "employee managed just as well", you've failed to make the argument for changing it. I would want it managed better but, according to you, that wouldn't happen.

Thanks for pointing that out...

The country worked a lot better when it was mostly unionized, workers had protections and people could work a job for 25 years and get a pension.

How so?

Specific examples, please...

Now, that you've found a bunch of battered housewives to put up with your behavior really doesn't reflect well.

What the fuck?

This is why you're a useless little bag of skin. You make statements with absolutely zero attachment to reality.

Battered housewives? What the fuck are you talking about?

Uh, guy, you said you'd fire people for having conversations you didn't approve of. I know you've tried to walk that back and say you don't do it very often, but that doesn't sound like it's related to job performance at all.

It's happened once. Guys were talking politics and got into a fight. Yeah, they were both fired. My shop has rules, and they're hardly overbearing. Break my very simple, and sparse number of rules and you're gone. Why would you want me to continue to employ someone who basically says "fuck the rules", and why would you want to remove the ability of me to fire him for doing that?

The problem with that company is that they paid people shit, they didn't have the proper working equipment... I was able to make those changes, and I had to fight with Nose Candy and his minions to get them.

It's a poor craftsman who blames his tools.

I also find it interesting that you believe that my people fighting is a negative reflection on me as a business owner.

You've just admitted to fighting yourself. So, what does that say about you? Exactly how big a piece of shit are you that your fighting is justified but someone else's is not? I don't fight with employees...

yes, keeping people around is better than having to train a new person every month, which is exactly where we were at up to that point.

If you say so.

Then again, you hadn't even reached the two year mark, so it's difficult to really say you'd reached "that point"...

Well, to start with, you actually have to show cause before you fire someone...

I do. That's part of being in an "at will" state. I can't fire someone for wearing corduroys instead of jeans. I can, however, if he's constantly fucking up, I can (and absolutely should) fire him for that...

and they have an appeals process.

Of course, you'd never agree to that.

Well, yeah, I might not.

What's involved in the appeals process? Who does that go before? Is it a non-unionized company rep or a union rep?

 

[JoeB131]

Well, by saying could be "employee managed just as well", you've failed to make the argument for changing it. I would want it managed better but, according to you, that wouldn't happen.

Wow, you're babbling...

Hey, here's the thing. Do you ever wonder why so many people voted for Bernie Sanders last time?

It's happened once. Guys were talking politics and got into a fight. Yeah, they were both fired. My shop has rules, and they're hardly overbearing. Break my very simple, and sparse number of rules and you're gone. Why would you want me to continue to employ someone who basically says "fuck the rules", and why would you want to remove the ability of me to fire him for doing that?

If people are having fistfights in your workplace, it must be a pretty toxic workplace.

You've just admitted to fighting yourself. So, what does that say about you? Exactly how big a piece of shit are you that your fighting is justified but someone else's is not? I don't fight with employees...

Are you a fucking retard, that you don't understand context. Nope, I didn't go to Nose Candy's office in Milwaukee and get into a fist fight with him until he gave us proper equipment.

I do. That's part of being in an "at will" state. I can't fire someone for wearing corduroys instead of jeans. I can, however, if he's constantly fucking up, I can (and absolutely should) fire him for that...

Um, no, the point of At Will employment is you don't have to give a reason.

Besides, you earlier said that you could fire someone for wearing red shoes..

What's involved in the appeals process? Who does that go before? Is it a non-unionized company rep or a union rep?

Oh, a union rep, absolutely... or a board of arbitration... that works, too.

 

[ESay]

What employee rights would you like to see protected?

And what employer rights would you like to see protected?

Well, what you wrote above seems a reasonable 'regulation' to me. There are few doubts that employers should be able to carry out their own staff policy. And employees should be able to protect their rights if they were treated unfair.

But, frankly, I dont completely get what ' for no reason without incurring legal liability' means on practice. Yes, if an employee repeatedly breaks the rules they should be fired. But you mentioned the guys which got to a fight over some political issue. And you fired them both. I think it is unfair. The fired should be the one who started the fight. The other one who fought back should have had the right to legally protect his case.