Illinois governor strikes blow for taxapyers...q

[JoeB131]

[

I would disagree. I have worked for two large companies. Too much nonsense and office politics. I have worked in small business. Much more encouraging work environments. I will stay small for the remainder of my working career.

I've worked for small companies, and what I found is that they engage in too much of the stupid. They do the things like fire the Lesbian or sexually harrass the desk clerk because they don't develop the professionalism.

As much as I hate to admit it, my best work experiences have been in the two large multi-national corporations NOT owned by Americans. (One Japanese, and the current one being British.)

So one should not be fired for being unprofessional now? Tell me are there any acceptable reasons for an employee to be fired?

I think you miss the point. The unprofessionalism was on the part of managers and owners, not employees... because honestly, they aren't managers because they earned it, they are managers because Daddy left them the company. These "Oedipal Wrecks" were usually the worst to work for. First job I got out of the Army, it was one of these cases. Took the two idiot sons about a year to wreck the company completely after their parents retired.

I think that employees should be fired for misconduct if it can be documented. But they should be entitled to an appeal process and the employer should be able to prove they are justified.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No, you just bitch and whine about all those poor people who expect to be fairly paid....

You have yet to define that term.

And anyone who doesn't like what their employer offers is free to find another employer are they not?

You yourself said that you have not accepted jobs because you didn't like the benefit package yet you somehow believe (you'll note I didn't say think) that employees are not free to exercise choice.

You are again holding conflicting paradigms.

Not at all.

You see, when I did accept a job with an Acceptable benefit package, I had some funny idea that they would actually HONOR the promises made.

your fault for not getting a contract. I have written contracts with my highest paid people.

I do think we need strong unions for all employees. I think we also should get rid of "at will" employment. Either you show cause or you keep the person.

The job provided by an employer does not belong to the employee. A business owner should have every right to hire and fire whoever he pleases.

I think we should have wage transparency. Employers should be required to disclose what they pay ALL employees of similar job description.

I wouldn't want everyone in a company to know what I make. That's no one's business. Tell me what other personal information would you like to broadcast publicly.

Again, we've tried letting the "job providers" have their every whim.

It didn't work.

That last bit shows that you have never owned a business. Try it one day and after navigating the labyrinth of state and federal regulations come back and tell me how that every whim thing works.

 

[JoeB131]

[

your fault for not getting a contract. I have written contracts with my highest paid people.

Or we just pass laws saying they have to keep their promises. Period. Or they will get slapped with crippling judgements.

[
That last bit shows that you have never owned a business. Try it one day and after navigating the labyrinth of state and federal regulations come back and tell me how that every whim thing works.

Actually, I do own a business... and regulators haven't bothered me one little bit.

Admittably, it's a small side thing I do out of my house..

But I get to hear this kind of whining all the time from vendors I deal with in my straight job, and it's sort of laughable.

They've all been in mourning since Romney got his ass handed to him.

 

[Skull Pilot]

[

your fault for not getting a contract. I have written contracts with my highest paid people.

Or we just pass laws saying they have to keep their promises. Period. Or they will get slapped with crippling judgements.

Unless you get it in writing how can you prove what was promised? I certainly wouldn't take he said she said as evidence in court.

[
That last bit shows that you have never owned a business. Try it one day and after navigating the labyrinth of state and federal regulations come back and tell me how that every whim thing works.

Actually, I do own a business... and regulators haven't bothered me one little bit.

Admittably, it's a small side thing I do out of my house..

Then you are a part time self employed person. There is a big difference between being self employed and owning a business.

 

[JoeB131]

[

your fault for not getting a contract. I have written contracts with my highest paid people.

Or we just pass laws saying they have to keep their promises. Period. Or they will get slapped with crippling judgements.

Unless you get it in writing how can you prove what was promised? I certainly wouldn't take he said she said as evidence in court.

[
That last bit shows that you have never owned a business. Try it one day and after navigating the labyrinth of state and federal regulations come back and tell me how that every whim thing works.

Actually, I do own a business... and regulators haven't bothered me one little bit.

Admittably, it's a small side thing I do out of my house..

Then you are a part time self employed person. There is a big difference between being self employed and owning a business.

Actually, I have a website and a W-9, so I'd call it a business. So does the IRS.

and the crippling regulation is I have to fill out schedule C. Oh, gasp.

point is, on the medical thing, if you offer medical insurance, then you don't fire people when they get sick or pregnant. That actually IS against the law.

Most people don't sue because it's too much trouble, but frankly, that isn't good enough.

Since the government is going to be on the hook, they need to prosecute these things a lot more vigorously.

WHich is why we need to dump "at Will" employment.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Or we just pass laws saying they have to keep their promises. Period. Or they will get slapped with crippling judgements.

Unless you get it in writing how can you prove what was promised? I certainly wouldn't take he said she said as evidence in court.

Actually, I do own a business... and regulators haven't bothered me one little bit.

Admittably, it's a small side thing I do out of my house..

Then you are a part time self employed person. There is a big difference between being self employed and owning a business.

Actually, I have a website and a W-9, so I'd call it a business. So does the IRS.

and the crippling regulation is I have to fill out schedule C. Oh, gasp.

point is, on the medical thing, if you offer medical insurance, then you don't fire people when they get sick or pregnant. That actually IS against the law.

Most people don't sue because it's too much trouble, but frankly, that isn't good enough.

Since the government is going to be on the hook, they need to prosecute these things a lot more vigorously.

WHich is why we need to dump "at Will" employment.

You own a part time job. If you don't show up for it you don't make money. And any moron can have a web site.

I started out working for myself and I thought i owned a business but it was really just a job.

Now If I don't show up for a week I still make money and my income can increase. That is the difference between owning a business and owning a job.

If an employee knows the job is "at will" up front then there is no need to make any laws. No one is entitled by law to a job nor should they be. The next thing you'll tell me is that there should be a minimum number of employees depending on the revenue of the business.

 

[JoeB131]

You own a part time job. If you don't show up for it you don't make money. And any moron can have a web site.

I started out working for myself and I thought i owned a business but it was really just a job.

Now If I don't show up for a week I still make money and my income can increase. That is the difference between owning a business and owning a job.

If an employee knows the job is "at will" up front then there is no need to make any laws. No one is entitled by law to a job nor should they be. The next thing you'll tell me is that there should be a minimum number of employees depending on the revenue of the business.

You know, this is probably why I have switched sides politically. The Business class is so fuckin' whiny. And it's not like I can tune it out when I get off USMB, because in my day job, I deal with small businesses all day and have to hear the same shit.

Frankly, what's wrong with making sure everyone has a job? That would kind of even make more sense.

Paying people to do nothing, that's what's kind of stupid.

FDR Proposed in his second bill of rights that every American should have a renumerative job. What a concept.

Except for the businessman, who gets his rocks off lording over people, I guess.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You own a part time job. If you don't show up for it you don't make money. And any moron can have a web site.

I started out working for myself and I thought i owned a business but it was really just a job.

Now If I don't show up for a week I still make money and my income can increase. That is the difference between owning a business and owning a job.

If an employee knows the job is "at will" up front then there is no need to make any laws. No one is entitled by law to a job nor should they be. The next thing you'll tell me is that there should be a minimum number of employees depending on the revenue of the business.

You know, this is probably why I have switched sides politically. The Business class is so fuckin' whiny. And it's not like I can tune it out when I get off USMB, because in my day job, I deal with small businesses all day and have to hear the same shit.

Frankly, what's wrong with making sure everyone has a job? That would kind of even make more sense.

Paying people to do nothing, that's what's kind of stupid.

FDR Proposed in his second bill of rights that every American should have a renumerative job. What a concept.

Except for the businessman, who gets his rocks off lording over people, I guess.

So tell me what kind of jobs are these? The dig a ditch and fill it in type jobs?

Oh wait that's a good idea then you can have a ditch diggers union and a ditch fillers union.

Fucking utopia.

 

[thereisnospoon]

[

Sir, when are you going to realize that you work for wages or salary. No one "works for insurance". I have no idea from where you got that notion.
As with other fringe benefits, they exist but they are not entitlements.
Sick days and one's insurance coverage are offered by the employer "just in case". They do not exist as part of your compensation package. That is unless you have an employment contract which specifically states this.

Again, since you guys INSIST that we can't ever, ever have Single Payer, like every other civilized country does, then, yes, I expect Health Insurance to be part of any compensation package, and I have turned down job offers when I found out they didn't offer what I considered adequate health coverage.

[
This is also the root of confusion as to why union members have this strange notion that an unused sick day can be "banked" in perpetuity. Same with vacation time. Use it or lose it.
This is one of the main reasons why public employee unions are being attacked. Tens of millions of dollars every year are being spent to pay people to NOT WORK.. It's absurd.
Again, use it or lose it.

Public Unions are being attacked because they support Democrats. Nothing more, nothing less. The fact is, it's absolute insanity that we only give most workers two weeks a year, and many of them don't take that. It's the kind of insanity they don't do in the rest of the world.

[
BTW, the poor crack head argument doesn't wash.. Do you know where the poor crack head gets his crack? From the rich crack dealer who uses his money to buy the services of very good criminal attorneys who can get these guy's charges busted down to jay walking.
So please realize they are all part of the same hypocrisy.

The whole "War on Drugs" is a scam. We lock up more people than any country in the world, and we have one of the world's highest crime rates. Part of that is because we let any asshole who wants a gun have one, but the other reason is because we criminalize what should be a medical issue.

Unless you are a rich asshole like Limbaugh. Rich addicts get rehab, poor addicts get prison.

And Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer with a point of view. Your hatred of Limbaugh shows you are not being honest in your posts about him.
For example, I do not bear any ill will toward Ed Schultz or Rachel Maddow. I disagree with their points of view. Period.

Limbaugh is an entertainer who has destroyed the GOP. Seriously the election was pretty much over when he called Fluke a slut. If the GOP had half a brain, they'd excise this cancer ASAP.

It's not "insisting"..It is having a connection to the facts and the reality of the situation.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The federal government made al the rules that resulted in today's economic conditions.
This is not about party. Although I can post video on here that show several democrats ( Barney Frank for one)pleading to keep Fannie/ Freddie intact.SNIP>... !

I usually put a SNIP in when your argument starts to get so retarded, it isn't worth reading.

Freddy and Fannie weren't the problem, the private banks defrauding them were. The lack of regulatory oversight on private banks were.

The problem wasn't rules, it was the lack of enforcement.

It's like if we have a murder law, but instead of throwing you in jail, we give you a bag of money.

Pretty much describes TARP to a tee. No one lost his job, no one went to jail, no one lost his bonus.

MOving the goal posts does not make your argument any stronger.
The federal government fucked up by interfering in the housing market.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Yeah, and I wouldn't have a problem with that, if one team hadn't bought the refs...

All a union does is make sure the score is kept fairly.

Or do you really think Paris Hilton is some worthy creature?

SNIP
Gee, I wonder why.

Frankly, I'm all for a massive inheitance tax. Wonderful idea. If Paris is so wonderful, I'm sure she can make a fortune cheating poor hotels workers, just like Daddy did.

Unions are coming back... with the Republicans going the way of the Whigs, nothings going to stop them.

Massive inheritance tax...Your poisonous greed has been exposed.
That has nothing to do with revenue and everything to do with hatred and punishment.
Who said Anything about Paris Hilton being wonderful?
And what makes you believe, notice how I did not use the word "think", because none of you libs think. You "feel"...that Hilton Hotel chain "cheats" it's workers?
Unions are coming back? In what century?
My you sure have a propensity to distort the truth.
Unions have been on a downward slide for nearly 5 decades and their no indication that slide will ever reverse.
Unions no longer have the juice they once did. The general public does not support unions. Asked if the average worker would desire membership in a labor collective, the consensus answer is an unqualified NO.

 

[thereisnospoon]

JoeB...
Again, since you guys INSIST that we can't ever, ever have Single Payer, like every other civilized country does, then, yes, I expect Health Insurance to be part of any compensation package, and I have turned down job offers when I found out they didn't offer what I considered adequate health coverage..
Correct. Insurance coverage is a fringe benefit. Your right to choose to work elsewhere.
And you are mincing words. The insurance package you insist upon is a fringe benefit offered to all employees. That is unless you were to be hired under a contract specific to you.
So no, as a regular employee, the insurance coverage is not part of your compensation package. All coverage has limits.

>Public Unions are being attacked because they support Democrats. Nothing more, nothing less. The fact is, it's absolute insanity that we only give most workers two weeks a year, and many of them don't take that. It's the kind of insanity they don't do in the rest of the world.

Not true. Not even close. Public worker unions are being attacked for a variety if reasons of which party affiliation is far down the list of priorities. And why can we state this? Because the issues unions are having are occurring in traditionally union heavy states run by the democrat party.
These unions are being attacked over their close ties to politicians who make laws and regulations favorable to the unions in return for the undying support of the members at the ballot box. Union bosses are treated like royalty by these union friendly politicians. Many union management positions are through political patronage. And finally public sector unions are being attacked because the taxpayers have had enough of the cost to support the higher than market pay rates the rules which allow workers to easily make lucrative overtime pay( most hours are not even worked but paid based on clock minimums) and of course the taxpayer funded gold plated benefits.
These are no longer sustainable as we have seen with towns and cities going bankrupt. And with municipal and state governments having run out of people and things to tax.


I addressed the remainder of your whine post already.

 

[thereisnospoon]

At least I don't have to bitch and moan about my life the way you do.

No, you just bitch and whine about all those poor people who expect to be fairly paid....

Oh please....Define "fairly paid"..
This argument you make..It presupposes the idea that the employee is never told what the pay rate is for the job until he actually starts work.
I'm pretty sure this was one of my first concerns in ANY interview...
And now you are going to make up some cock and bull story claiming employers will say one thing and once the worker starts the job, it's something else. Stow it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

No, you just bitch and whine about all those poor people who expect to be fairly paid....

You have yet to define that term.

And anyone who doesn't like what their employer offers is free to find another employer are they not?

You yourself said that you have not accepted jobs because you didn't like the benefit package yet you somehow believe (you'll note I didn't say think) that employees are not free to exercise choice.

You are again holding conflicting paradigms.

Not at all.

You see, when I did accept a job with an Acceptable benefit package, I had some funny idea that they would actually HONOR the promises made.

Now I know better.

I do think we need strong unions for all employees. I think we also should get rid of "at will" employment. Either you show cause or you keep the person.

I think we should have wage transparency. Employers should be required to disclose what they pay ALL employees of similar job description.

Again, we've tried letting the "job providers" have their every whim.

It didn't work.

Umm misconception time. At will employment protects the employer from having to keep a mediocre, unproductive, unreliable or insubordinate employee.
It allows the employer to deny the former employee who was terminated FOR CAUSE to be denied expensive unemployment benefits. At will protects the rightful owner of a job, the employer. At will also allows the employer the flexibility to thin the number of employees in times of a downturn in revenue.
Again, there are no "promises"...No insurance coverage is open ended. It's impossible.
All policies have limits. Besides, there is always COBRA. And if one cannot afford that, Medicare.
And nice try in attempting get a labor union style busy body policy through the side door.
Newsflash.. It is NONE OF ANYONE ELSE'S BUSINESS what their wage or salary.Employers have this policy to cut down on the "IT'SNOT FAIR HE GETS MORE THAN I DO!!!!!" bullshit.
Here dummy. HE gets more than you do because HE does his job better than you do your job..Ya got that!..And if YOU do not improve your performance beware of your AT WILL status.
Yeah, that's right. If you are in my employ and you are a constant source of problems, I am getting rid of you ass and replacing you. Or maybe I just don't like you. I am certainly not going to be forced to keep paying someone who just is a pain in the ass.
At this point I would rather have a good worker that flies under the radar than a great worker who is a constant source of drama.
Because I will rid myself of the drama producer and promote the good worker into his place.
My house..My rules. Don't like it? Clean out your desk.

 

[JoeB131]

[

So tell me what kind of jobs are these? The dig a ditch and fill it in type jobs?

Oh wait that's a good idea then you can have a ditch diggers union and a ditch fillers union.

Fucking utopia.

Sometimes you need ditches.

We have thousands of roads, bridges, schools, etc. that are in disrepair.

Frankly, a lot more important to us than a car elevator or a dressage horsie...

 

[JoeB131]

[q

Umm misconception time. At will employment protects the employer from having to keep a mediocre, unproductive, unreliable or insubordinate employee.
It allows the employer to deny the former employee who was terminated FOR CAUSE to be denied expensive unemployment benefits. At will protects the rightful owner of a job, the employer. At will also allows the employer the flexibility to thin the number of employees in times of a downturn in revenue.
.....

In short, frankly, it might work fine for the ego larger than life in the corner office, but I don't see why the rest of us should go along with it...

And that's the point. What makes the employers so fucking important?

Just can't see a good reason for it, really. You aren't as important as you think you are.

 

[thereisnospoon]

[

So tell me what kind of jobs are these? The dig a ditch and fill it in type jobs?

Oh wait that's a good idea then you can have a ditch diggers union and a ditch fillers union.

Fucking utopia.

Sometimes you need ditches.

We have thousands of roads, bridges, schools, etc. that are in disrepair.

Frankly, a lot more important to us than a car elevator or a dressage horsie...

Here's where you go off the tracks. Infrastructure is via the public sector. The other items are privately funded...And none of your business.

 

[thereisnospoon]

[q

Umm misconception time. At will employment protects the employer from having to keep a mediocre, unproductive, unreliable or insubordinate employee.
It allows the employer to deny the former employee who was terminated FOR CAUSE to be denied expensive unemployment benefits. At will protects the rightful owner of a job, the employer. At will also allows the employer the flexibility to thin the number of employees in times of a downturn in revenue.
.....

In short, frankly, it might work fine for the ego larger than life in the corner office, but I don't see why the rest of us should go along with it...

And that's the point. What makes the employers so fucking important?

Just can't see a good reason for it, really. You aren't as important as you think you are.

The simple answer is...Without employers there are no jobs to create employees.
Now, what exactly are you not going along with?

 

[thereisnospoon]

I've worked for small companies, and what I found is that they engage in too much of the stupid. They do the things like fire the Lesbian or sexually harrass the desk clerk because they don't develop the professionalism.

As much as I hate to admit it, my best work experiences have been in the two large multi-national corporations NOT owned by Americans. (One Japanese, and the current one being British.)

So one should not be fired for being unprofessional now? Tell me are there any acceptable reasons for an employee to be fired?

I think you miss the point. The unprofessionalism was on the part of managers and owners, not employees... because honestly, they aren't managers because they earned it, they are managers because Daddy left them the company. These "Oedipal Wrecks" were usually the worst to work for. First job I got out of the Army, it was one of these cases. Took the two idiot sons about a year to wreck the company completely after their parents retired.

I think that employees should be fired for misconduct if it can be documented. But they should be entitled to an appeal process and the employer should be able to prove they are justified.

Yes, all too often the kids will fuck up their parent's business pretty quickly after they take it over..That is if the parents dote on their kids and do not make them work for what they want.
In any event, once an employee has been written up, the next infraction can cost them employment. That should and in many places is the choice of the employer. The employer owns the business. The employer owns the jobs.
It has to be that way.

 

[JoeB131]

[

So tell me what kind of jobs are these? The dig a ditch and fill it in type jobs?

Oh wait that's a good idea then you can have a ditch diggers union and a ditch fillers union.

Fucking utopia.

Sometimes you need ditches.

We have thousands of roads, bridges, schools, etc. that are in disrepair.

Frankly, a lot more important to us than a car elevator or a dressage horsie...

Here's where you go off the tracks. Infrastructure is via the public sector. The other items are privately funded...And none of your business.

Right. Public sector stuff that's crumbling because we only tax the douchebags at 35%, and they are all screaming poverty if we jump that to 39%...