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

[JoeB131]

How about the payment? Should the employer provide some payments during the rehabilitation?

Why not? Actually, most companies offer disability insurance...

Again, the two sides of a coin. If an employee is sure the union will protect their 'rights' against the employer, they may become not too eager to do their job properly.

I guess. That sounds like a management problem. Frankly, if the only way you have to motivate people is by fear, your business is going to kind of suck, anyway.

So, what is the solution? Take everything away and share it all?

Wouldn't be surprised if we get there a lot sooner than you think. Again, the only thing that keeps this country from being more liberal is the GOP has gotten VERY GOOD at using racial, religious and sexual fears to keep poor dumb white people voting against their own economic interests. Remember when Dubya was going to save us all from Gay Marriage in 2004? How did that turn out? Oh, he didn't. But he did let his bankster buddies loot the economy and stuck us all with the bill.

 

[Canon Shooter]

I gave you an answer, just not one you would like.

I guess I was holding out some sliver of hope that you might be able to formulate an coherent response using your own intellect.

Please accept my apologies for making such a baseless and unfounded assumption about you...

I'm kind of not treating you seriously anymore because it's pretty clear that you live in mortal terror that someone might tell you what constitutes fair play.

How many company representatives are on the arbitration board? Is it an even number of company/union people? More company folks? More union folks? I've never had to deal with an arbitration board, so this is something I have no knowledge of. If you choose to not educate me that's fine, but that also means you need to stop whining when I disagree with you...

 

[Canon Shooter]

I guess. That sounds like a management problem.

It could just as easily be a "lazy employee with a union job" problem...

 

[JoeB131]

And there you go making assumptions about things you're completely ignorant of. No one says "Don't you dare!" do anything.

We know before the end of the first interview whether or not a person will be asked back for a second interview. If a person is asked back for a second interview, that means the decision was made during the first interview to offer the person the job.

Um, so how did the guy who charged a bunch of stuff to his credit card slip through this brilliant system?

Now, that was a cheap shot, but it shows how broken the system of hiring actually is.

You look at a bunch of resumes, most of them written by someone else. So all the resume part does is prove "who hired the best resume writer." Most people suck at writing resumes.

So out of those 400 resumes you got in, you interview, what five of them for one hour, and then you've picked one.

to put the absurdity of this in perspective, you'd never marry anyone after one date. But we take jobs/offer jobs on the basis of one interview, in something that will hopefully be a years long relationship.

So, towards the end of the first interview the candidate is given an employee "handbook". There's not a lot to it; a few pages, all of which are gone over with the new hire at the interview. Within those pages is a sort of "do's and don'ts" section and, in that section, it lists things which are prohibited, one of which is discussions regarding politics and/or religion. I think it comes right after the whole "drug free workplace" blurb.

YOu really think anyone reads the employee handbook? Yes, I'm very familiar with this bit of corporate asshattery, probably something I would get rid of right after At-Will employment. The problem with employee handbooks is that they all say "THIS IS NOT A CONTRACT". In short, it's a bunch of obligations on the part of the employee, while putting no obligations on the part of the employer.

Trust me, no one ever puts a gun to someone's head to force them to sign. They do it of their own volition, and they know, when they sign, that they will be held accountable for their actions.

Perhaps you see something wrong with treating employees like adults and holding them accountable for what they do, but I certainly don't...

Again, the problem there is the problem with coercion. They desperately need the job, so you as the employer have the advantage. Heaven forbid that we level the playing field. I mean, it would be nice if Toxic bosses came with labels, but mostly you don't.

 

[ESay]

Why not? Actually, most companies offer disability insurance

Disability insurance is a good thing, but the employer isn't an insurance company and hardly they should carry a burden of these payments (if that is not their fault, of course).

guess. That sounds like a management problem. Frankly, if the only way you have to motivate people is by fear, your business is going to kind of suck, anyway

Why by fear? It seems quite reasonable to me - get you work done properly and get paid for it or look for another job.

Wouldn't be surprised if we get there a lot sooner than you think. Again, the only thing that keeps this country from being more liberal is the GOP has gotten VERY GOOD at using racial, religious and sexual fears to keep poor dumb white people voting against their own economic interests

As I said above, it has already been tried and didn't work out well.

 

[JoeB131]

I guess I was holding out some sliver of hope that you might be able to formulate an coherent response using your own intellect.

Please accept my apologies for making such a baseless and unfounded assumption about you...

Again, I've given you a response... just not one you'd like.

I'd like to go back to the good old days when the playing field was even because you had unions and government looking out for the working man.

How many company representatives are on the arbitration board?

Zero. That was easy.

Is it an even number of company/union people? More company folks? More union folks? I've never had to deal with an arbitration board, so this is something I have no knowledge of. If you choose to not educate me that's fine, but that also means you need to stop whining when I disagree with you...

Ideally, it should be a neutral party...but they should have a bias towards working people. Which means no bullshit, "I put him on a PIP and then wrote him up every other day." Most sensible people would see that for what it is. Most people would also see real employee misconduct for what it is.

But in my career, frankly, I've seen more employer misconduct than employee misconduct, and not just what has been directed against me personally. ( I would say in my entire career, maybe only three incidents against me personally.)

 

[JoeB131]

Disability insurance is a good thing, but the employer isn't an insurance company and hardly they should carry a burden of these payments (if that is not their fault, of course).

Okay. I'm all for a government program that does this. On the same point, this is why I favor universal health care. Your employer shouldn't have the literal power of life and death over you.

Why by fear? It seems quite reasonable to me - get you work done properly and get paid for it or look for another job.

Okay. How about, "Have sex with me or look for another job?" Or 'Do these things that aren't in your job description and you aren't trained for, or look for another job." Or "Do this thing without proper safety equipment or look for another job."

As I said above, it has already been tried and didn't work out well.

Really, When and where? I mean, you guys aren't going to keep trying to drag out the USSR, are you? The USSR did fine... it survived the other European Empires by decades.

America did just fine in that period after the New Deal all the way up until Reagan. Guys like my dad had union jobs, they were able to take care of their families and live nice middle class lifestyles.

But as Herbert Hoover observed, "The problem with Capitalism is Capitalists.... They're too damned greedy."

 

[Canon Shooter]

Um, so how did the guy who charged a bunch of stuff to his credit card slip through this brilliant system?

He was with the company for over five years before he went rogue. There was nothing to suggest he would ever do it, simply because he never had and, when we hired him, it wasn't something he was thinking of doing...

Now, that was a cheap shot, but it shows how broken the system of hiring actually is.

No, it's a fair question. Also, then, a fair question would be this: How should I go about hiring people? How many interviews should they be given? My facilities manager had one interview, came back for a second "interview" during which we made him a formal offer, and he's been an absolutely stellar employee for almost ten years.

That sure worked out pretty good...

You look at a bunch of resumes, most of them written by someone else. So all the resume part does is prove "who hired the best resume writer." Most people suck at writing resumes.

Since retiring from the Navy, I've needed resumes for two jobs. I wrote both of them. I'm pretty sure they were horribly written, but they got me in for the interview, which is what landed me the job in both instances...

So out of those 400 resumes you got in, you interview, what five of them for one hour, and then you've picked one.

to put the absurdity of this in perspective, you'd never marry anyone after one date. But we take jobs/offer jobs on the basis of one interview, in something that will hopefully be a years long relationship.

Again, what's your suggestion for an alternative?

You really think anyone reads the employee handbook?

Two things: First, the handbook is gone through, page by page, with the new hire by the HR Director and my hiring manager. That way, a person can't say they were unaware of something in it. Second, if someone signs a document stating that they've read it, and they haven't, then he puts himself in jeopardy from the word "go". It's not my fault if someone falsely claims they did something...

Yes, I'm very familiar with this bit of corporate asshattery, probably something I would get rid of right after At-Will employment. The problem with employee handbooks is that they all say "THIS IS NOT A CONTRACT".

Ours says nothing of the sort...

In short, it's a bunch of obligations on the part of the employee, while putting no obligations on the part of the employer.

Simply untrue.

As the employer, it's my obligation to provide a workplace which is safe and secure. It's my obligation to provide a workplace where an employee doesn't feel threatened because of the color of his skin, his sexual orientation or his religion. It's my obligation to pay my people for the jobs they perform. It's my obligation to ensure the workplace adheres to the rules, regulations and standards of the state of Florida so that my employees can be confident that they're not being exposed to anything harmful (goes back to reason #1).

Those are just a few but, as the employer, my list of obligations far outweighs the list of obligations we place on an employee...

Again, the problem there is the problem with coercion. They desperately need the job, so you as the employer have the advantage. Heaven forbid that we level the playing field. I mean, it would be nice if Toxic bosses came with labels, but mostly you don't.

A level playing field??

Last time I checked, it was my name on the building. It's my money in the bank accounts.

How, exactly, do you "level the playing field" with people who have have so much less invested in the company?

And I don't coerce anyone. When someone is made an offer, it's represents a fair wage for the work to be performed. In most cases, the initial pay being offered is more than what would be offered by one of my competitors. You seem to be hung up on the whole "advantage" idea. Hey, it's my fucking company. As the owner of the company, why should I allow anyone else to have the advantage when it comes to matters of running my company?

That's fucking insane.

As for the whole "toxic bosses" thing, you're proving only to be an ignorant little whiner. I've got 156 employees, spread between two companies, who would disagree with you.

Their opinions matter to me. Yours do not. They matter to me. You do not...

 

[JoeB131]

He was with the company for over five years before he went rogue. There was nothing to suggest he would ever do it, simply because he never had and, when we hired him, it wasn't something he was thinking of doing...

Version #7 of this story. He had been there for five years, and then one day decided to misrepresent his position and put a bunch of plane tickets and dinners on his company credit card.

No, it's a fair question. Also, then, a fair question would be this: How should I go about hiring people? How many interviews should they be given? My facilities manager had one interview, came back for a second "interview" during which we made him a formal offer, and he's been an absolutely stellar employee for almost ten years.

That sure worked out pretty good...

Well, I'd do more than one interview, to start with. It sounds like you got lucky in that case... Frankly, I've seen people who were tenative in interviews, and turned out good, I've seen people who've interviewed great, and turned out to be awful.

One of the things I've done in my career is "Temp to Hire", which actually works out well, you get to know each other, but either side can walk if it isn't working.

As for the whole "toxic bosses" thing, you're proving only to be an ignorant little whiner. I've got 156 employees, spread between two companies, who would disagree with you.

I'm sure they wouldn't dare disagree with you. I mean, earlier in this thread you wanked off at the thought of hiring me just to fire me.... I am sure people who actually work for you get to see this kind of toxic shit every day.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Again, I've given you a response... just not one you'd like.

Truth be told, I do prefer replies which require intellect and brain power. You seem unburdened by either of those...

I'd like to go back to the good old days when the playing field was even because you had unions and government looking out for the working man.

Zero. That was easy.

Well, that's reason enough not to have it...

Ideally, it should be a neutral party...but they should have a bias towards working people. Which means no bullshit...

No, it means he's not a neutral party.

A neutral party has no bias. None. Period. Any bias at all means the whole thing is unfair and, as such, is useless...

But in my career, frankly, I've seen more employer misconduct than employee misconduct, and not just what has been directed against me personally. ( I would say in my entire career, maybe only three incidents against me personally.)

I've seen plenty on both sides, which is why I've vowed, since the day I opened my doors, to hold myself, and those who work for me, to a higher standard, Believe it or not, the employees like being held to a higher standard. I have no use for anyone who wants to work here and "just do enough", which is what a union would work to ensure.

My employees aren't "union employees". They're better than that...

 

[Canon Shooter]

Version #7 of this story.

Same version, dipshit...

He had been there for five years, and then one day decided to misrepresent his position and put a bunch of plane tickets and dinners on his company credit card.

In a nutshell, yeah.

Keep in mind, I haven't shared with you, nor am I likely to, the "why" behind what he did...

Well, I'd do more than one interview, to start with. It sounds like you got lucky in that case...

No, that tends to be the norm for me.

With only an occasional exception, I guess I'm just a better judge of people than you are...

One of the things I've done in my career is "Temp to Hire", which actually works out well, you get to know each other, but either side can walk if it isn't working.

I can do that now...

I'm sure they wouldn't dare disagree with you. I mean, earlier in this thread you wanked off at the thought of hiring me just to fire me.... I am sure people who actually work for you get to see this kind of toxic shit every day.

"Wanked off"?

Odd.

If you worked for me, I would fire you because I can already tell that you lack the high quality of character and integrity I demand from my people, and because, by your own admission, you are a liar and approach business dishonestly.

But, in truth, I wouldn't hire you if you paid me...

 

[Canon Shooter]

Why by fear? It seems quite reasonable to me - get you work done properly and get paid for it or look for another job.

Joe is incapable of accepting that a non-union employee can be happy at his job. See, Joe's the kind of guy who really can't take care of himself or his affairs. He needs someone else to do it for him. He doesn't like the fact that employees might actually be held to a standard...

 

[JoeB131]

No, it means he's not a neutral party.

A neutral party has no bias. None. Period. Any bias at all means the whole thing is unfair and, as such, is useless...

Well, we know you wouldn't like it... but that's a selling point as far as I'm concerned.

If you worked for me, I would fire you because I can already tell that you lack the high quality of character and integrity I demand from my people, and because, by your own admission, you are a liar and approach business dishonestly.

Again, I know, man, you spend all this time on what you would do if you had power over me... the sign of a toxic boss... one that gets off on that sort of thing.

It's just too bad you people don't come with labels.

 

[JoeB131]

Joe is incapable of accepting that a non-union employee can be happy at his job. See, Joe's the kind of guy who really can't take care of himself or his affairs. He needs someone else to do it for him. He doesn't like the fact that employees might actually be held to a standard...

Hey, guy, if people were truly "happy" at their jobs, you wouldn't have to pay them to do them.

Again, I noticed you skipped over the story I told about my friend who was fired when the bosses found out she was gay. I've also seen women fired because they were pregnant, people who were fired because they ticked off someone who was sleeping with the boss, people who were fired because they ran up too many medical bills (not just me), people who were fired because they complained about unsafe working conditions.

I take care of my own affairs just fine, thanks.

I'm all for holding employees to a standard as long as employers are held to the same standards.

 

[Canon Shooter]

No, it means he's not a neutral party.

A neutral party has no bias. None. Period. Any bias at all means the whole thing is unfair and, as such, is useless...

Well, we know you wouldn't like it... but that's a selling point as far as I'm concerned.

Why would I?

Why are you completely disinterested in showing fairness to both parties?

People like you are why I'll never have a union shop. I would close my doors and retire before I allowed that to happen.

Then again, my employees wouldn't allow it, either, so I'm in good shape...

It's just too bad you people don't come with labels.

Luckily, intelligent folks don't need people like you to have labels. We can tell you're worthless, lazy and dishonest just by how you present yourself...

 

[JoeB131]

Why would I?

Why are you completely disinterested in showing fairness to both parties?

People like you are why I'll never have a union shop. I would close my doors and retire before I allowed that to happen.

The world would be better off if you did.

I'm sure you'd be horrified at having to treat your employees fairly.

Now, I'll be fair.. I've never worked in a union shop. My Dad did, both of my idiot brothers do. (Ironically, they don't get the only reason they have anything near middle class is because of a union).

I'm not even sure I'd want to work in a union shop. I'm actually kind of happy with what I'm doing now.

But here's the thing.

This is NOT a good trend..> This is the Trend that gets you a Castro or a Chavez or a Bernie sanders.

Luckily, intelligent folks don't need people like you to have labels. We can tell you're worthless, lazy and dishonest just by how you present yourself...

Really? I've worked for multi-national corporations.... have gotten very good reviews and was often entrusted to train other employees. So there's that.

You never did say what you pay your purchasing people, but it's probably less than what I've made.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Hey, guy, if people were truly "happy" at their jobs, you wouldn't have to pay them to do them.

That's the dumbest fucking thing you've said yet.

I can't even comment on that it's so fucking stupid...

Again, I noticed you skipped over the story I told about my friend who was fired when the bosses found out she was gay.

That's funny coming from the guy who has continued to ignore the list of things I do for my people, that I certainly don't have to...

I've also seen women fired because they were pregnant, people who were fired because they ticked off someone who was sleeping with the boss, people who were fired because they ran up too many medical bills (not just me), people who were fired because they complained about unsafe working conditions.

I don't know where you live (I want to guess Illinois), but I'd be willing to bet that state law provides for a myriad of protections for workers. Ever hear of "maternity leave"? That's dictated by US labor law. It says that I, as an employer, have to provide 12 weeks of unpaid leave to a someone who has a baby or adopts a child. Well, I don't like doing that. So, instead of paying them nothing, they're paid half their salary while they're on leave. I'm sure you'll let us know why my doing that is bad, and how my doing that makes me a "toxic boss", though.

Also, that's not something I would ever agree to in a union negotiation.

I take care of my own affairs just fine, thanks.

Right...

I'm all for holding employees to a standard as long as employers are held to the same standards.

Another lie.

I hold myself to far higher standards than I hold my employees. As their employer, I believe that's the right thing to do. They know it, they see it and they appreciate it.

You, on the other hand, have already indicated that "fairness" is not something you're interested in whatsoever. Remember? You want arbitration boards skewed in favor of an employee.

How is that fair?

 

[JoeB131]

That's funny coming from the guy who has continued to ignore the list of things I do for my people, that I certainly don't have to...

Because I don't care. Most of what you list are common practice in real companies.

I don't know where you live (I want to guess Illinois), but I'd be willing to bet that state law provides for a myriad of protections for workers. Ever hear of "maternity leave"?

Again, most of those protections are meaningless in a "At Will/Right To work" employment situation. Of course, they didn't tell those ladies they were being fired for being preggers or that guy that he was being fired because the boss's girlfriend was upset about their previous relationship. They had "official" reasons.

You, on the other hand, have already indicated that "fairness" is not something you're interested in whatsoever. Remember? You want arbitration boards skewed in favor of an employee.

How is that fair?

because the employer already has most of the advantages...

you can tell who the GOP's enemies are- Unions, Lawyers and Government- anyone who might make the playing field a little more level.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Sure they did. I personally know several little bitches on the left who felt he should not be allowed to put his faith on display as he did, and that he should be removed from the roster...

Okay... so did that have any real effect? Um. No. People got Kap fired.

I won't speak to what someone's God is invested in. I will, however, say that this has nothing to do with what God is invested in and everything to do with what Kaepernick and Tebow were invested in...

I agree. Kap was addressing a real, honest to God (pun intended) problem. Tebow was trying to waive his faith around and stick it in everyone's face.

Man, I just love dipshit idiots like you.

I don't have a God, dumbass. I'm Agnostic. But ignorant little nippleheads like you will jump to such a conclusion simply because I choose to come down more in support of someone who kneels in prayer as opposed to the little whining bitch who kneels in protest.

Again, I could see someone who actually believes in a Magic Sky Fairy being offended by Tebow. Who wins a football game is trivial... in the "cosmic" scheme of things. But of all the things to pray for, you know instead of World Peace or a Cure for Cancer, he prays for winning a football game.

Here's the difference between you and me:

I do not believe in God. I can allow for the possibility of some "higher power", but I suspect I'll go to my grave never knowing who or what that is. I don't begrudge anyone their religious beliefs. I'm intelligent enough to understand that faith plays a large role in the lives of many, and that's perfectly okay. Why would I have a problem with that?

Oh, I don't know, maybe because religion is used by those in power to keep people complacent instead of demanding needed change.

You, on the other hand, are so juvenile and immature that you can't even allow yourself to respect the fact that someone believes differently than you and, as a result, you mock them.

You're nothing but an ignorant child...

I mock them because their beliefs are silly.

Trans beliefs are just as silly and deserve to be mocked as well.

 

[Canon Shooter]

The world would be better off if you did.

Not knowing what industry I'm in, that's a profoundly ignorant thing to say.

You ignored my question: Why are you completely disinterested in showing fairness to both parties?

I'm sure you'd be horrified at having to treat your employees fairly.

I treat them more than fairly, and they know it.

You continuing to state otherwise only makes you look silly, because it certainly doesn't make it true...

Now, I'll be fair.. I've never worked in a union shop. My Dad did, both of my idiot brothers do.

That's a damn shame your dad's three sons are all idiots...

I'm not even sure I'd want to work in a union shop. I'm actually kind of happy with what I'm doing now.

You're defeating your own argument...

Really? I've worked for multi-national corporations.... have gotten very good reviews and was often entrusted to train other employees. So there's that.

You're also a liar, so there's really no reason to believe you. I don't believe youy've ever been trusted with anything...

You never did say what you pay your purchasing people, but it's probably less than what I've made.

Is that what this is about? You want to crow about how much more you've been paid than the people who work for me?

What an egotistical little whining liar you are.

What you've made makes no difference to me, nor does it interest me enough to divulge what I pay my people. It's enough to keep them more than happy.

And, just to illustrate this further, earlier in this thread I mentioned that my facilities manager makes just over $85K a year. You mwent on to demaen that, saying that some facilities managers in Chicago make over $120K a year. But, being the dishonest little fuck that you are, you neglected to mention that the range for what's considered the "norm" for a facilities manager in Chicago actually starts around $90K, only $5K more than what I pay my guy.

When you consider the costs of living in each location, my guy fares a whole lot better...