Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
In recent years, I've found employers give raises to people they want to keep and feel they will loose them it they don't. The last full time job I had before I retired I told my employer I had to have a raise or I was leaving. I got the raise in my next paycheck. I don't think it was like that 50 years ago. People seem to get raises because they proved their worth.Your bad attitude is keeping you poor. That's why I fired you.
Guy, you couldn't afford me... I probably wouldn't have sent your chicken shit company a resume...
You're a bottom feeder who doesn't even offer health insurance.
I watch little companies like yours go out of business because of their half-assery all the time.
You already told me your max salary was $80K. Now you make less than $25K. It's not the money I can't afford, that's for sure. I wouldn't do you to my staff though.
After I had bought and merged three companies, I had picked up a lot of good employees and of course a lot of dead wood. I was working with my management team on our plan to replace the bad staff. But we didn't know how many people we would need to replace them.
After a lot of discussion, I finally decided we fire all the bad ones immediately and the same day, no dragging it out. Let's rip off the bandaid. We'll identify the gaps and be ready to replace them at once.
So that Friday, we did it. We fired 30% of the company. All of them had either personally bad attitudes or just bad attitudes about doing any work. You were a marginal worker, it was your bad attitude that got you fired.
Here's what you didn't know because you were gone. You know how many of you we had to replace? Zero. It wasn't just you I didn't replace, I didn't need to replace any of you. The place seemed so much roomier and wow, it was so much more enjoyable being there without the lazy, useless and bad attitudes. Over time we replaced you as we grew, but that Friday you all left, your pay and benefits were all just savings
Turns out, your good employees were spending a bunch of their time corrected the errors of the bad apples, I'll bet. Without the lousy co-workers, they probably had more time to be effective at their own jobs.
Yes, that's exactly what was happening as I learned. They said their jobs were actually easier
I can understand that. When I was hired at my current job, there were three people doing more or less what I do, including myself. One of them was useless AND a pain in the ass. We got rid of her right after I was hired, and never missed her. A couple of months ago, the company got rid of the other guy, and I just absorbed his work. He was very nice, but I spent a good part of my day checking his work because he was careless and didn't have the best grasp of spelling and grammar. It's actually easier and faster for me to do all the work myself than to do my job and double-check his.
Now if that will just translate into a pay raise, since I'm basically doing single-handedly what originally had three people assigned to it . . .
Our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror merely create more of the problem the right wing likes to complain about.I don't understand who it is you are criticizing here. What policies encourage people to put children in risky situations? Whose policies? are you referring to?You're ultimately not benefiting children through policies which encourage people to put them in risky situations in order to use them as human shields. When there are no ideal choices, you have to go with the one which is least-bad for everyone involved.
US immigration policies which give adults a pass on incarceration and prosecution when they're caught if they have children with them only encourage more people to drag children along on their border-crossings. The leftists' short-term, emotion-driven concept of "Awwww, the poor little kiddies" SOUNDS good - to them, anyway - but ultimately encourages people to put more children at risk.
In recent years, I've found employers give raises to people they want to keep and feel they will loose them it they don't. The last full time job I had before I retired I told my employer I had to have a raise or I was leaving. I got the raise in my next paycheck. I don't think it was like that 50 years ago. People seem to get raises because they proved their worth.Guy, you couldn't afford me... I probably wouldn't have sent your chicken shit company a resume...
You're a bottom feeder who doesn't even offer health insurance.
I watch little companies like yours go out of business because of their half-assery all the time.
You already told me your max salary was $80K. Now you make less than $25K. It's not the money I can't afford, that's for sure. I wouldn't do you to my staff though.
After I had bought and merged three companies, I had picked up a lot of good employees and of course a lot of dead wood. I was working with my management team on our plan to replace the bad staff. But we didn't know how many people we would need to replace them.
After a lot of discussion, I finally decided we fire all the bad ones immediately and the same day, no dragging it out. Let's rip off the bandaid. We'll identify the gaps and be ready to replace them at once.
So that Friday, we did it. We fired 30% of the company. All of them had either personally bad attitudes or just bad attitudes about doing any work. You were a marginal worker, it was your bad attitude that got you fired.
Here's what you didn't know because you were gone. You know how many of you we had to replace? Zero. It wasn't just you I didn't replace, I didn't need to replace any of you. The place seemed so much roomier and wow, it was so much more enjoyable being there without the lazy, useless and bad attitudes. Over time we replaced you as we grew, but that Friday you all left, your pay and benefits were all just savings
Turns out, your good employees were spending a bunch of their time corrected the errors of the bad apples, I'll bet. Without the lousy co-workers, they probably had more time to be effective at their own jobs.
Yes, that's exactly what was happening as I learned. They said their jobs were actually easier
I can understand that. When I was hired at my current job, there were three people doing more or less what I do, including myself. One of them was useless AND a pain in the ass. We got rid of her right after I was hired, and never missed her. A couple of months ago, the company got rid of the other guy, and I just absorbed his work. He was very nice, but I spent a good part of my day checking his work because he was careless and didn't have the best grasp of spelling and grammar. It's actually easier and faster for me to do all the work myself than to do my job and double-check his.
Now if that will just translate into a pay raise, since I'm basically doing single-handedly what originally had three people assigned to it . . .
Then you do things your way and we'll do things ours. My tax dollars do not go to the rich either. They may keep more of their own money, but they are not getting mine unless I personally give it to them. You leftists really believe that all money belongs to government instead of the individual. That's a very disturbing way of thinking.
Um, last time I checked, money was issued by the government.
Here's where you are not terribly bright, Ray. Every time the GOP cuts taxes for rich people, they usually find ways for you to pay more. For instance, most of that $18.00 you got in tax cuts will be eaten up by Trump's new tariffs...
The court seen it differently......at least in the last case.
The US Constitution protects your right to practice your religion as you see fit. Homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible and even Koran. In fact very few religions accept a gay relationship of any kind.
It's less a personal prejudice than it is a religious one. There are no exemptions for freedom of religion just because you own a business.
So when do I get to start cutting people's hearts out to appease Queztacoatl?
Okay, but the reason for that is is not because they want to "Wipe out White People", but because after Nixon and the Southern Strategy, the GOP decided that they were going to play on White insecurities...
Oh, noes, we might actually be able to get you health insurance, and that would be awful!!! Here's the thing, if Capitalism weren't such a shit sandwich for those of us who do the work, then the GOP wouldn't need racism to sell it.
I don't understand who it is you are criticizing here. What policies encourage people to put children in risky situations? Whose policies? are you referring to?You're ultimately not benefiting children through policies which encourage people to put them in risky situations in order to use them as human shields. When there are no ideal choices, you have to go with the one which is least-bad for everyone involved.
US immigration policies which give adults a pass on incarceration and prosecution when they're caught if they have children with them only encourage more people to drag children along on their border-crossings. The leftists' short-term, emotion-driven concept of "Awwww, the poor little kiddies" SOUNDS good - to them, anyway - but ultimately encourages people to put more children at risk.
again, only for the bigots... the Majority of Americans looked at the Orange Shitgibbon and said 'no'.
The sad thing is, it used to be that when a political party shit the bed and nominated someone who had no business being president (Goldwater, McGovern) enough people crossed party lines to decisively beat them, and the stupidity of the Electoral College didn't matter.
This time, there were a crapload of Republicans who knew damned well Trump had no business being president, but went along anyway.
Yeah, they are only brown people. Here was the thing, in the 1930's the Nazis weren't gassing the Jews, and someone like you said, "Not our problem".
The thing is, what is going on IS our problem, because of the refugees, and more importantly, it's our fault, because we encouraged the drug trade that is causing all the violence.
The LEAST we could do is take these people in.
Meaning we do not need a wall across the country, only in strategic locations. We already have over 700 miles of reinforced fencing and areas that terrain is so bad, or border patrol presence is so large, or other factors that we have few crossings.Your survey says they want a wall in strategic locations.Oh, so you know all this even though we don't have one? My you are so good, in fact, you are so much better than all our agencies that said a wall would benefit them greatly; the same agencies that participated in the design of the wall that would help eliminate all the things you wrote above.
Actually, the agencies aren't saying that at all.
https://gizmodo.com/us-border-patrol-doesnt-want-a-wall-they-want-drones-an-1773661854
Even the conservative Cato Institute says a wall won't work.
Why the Wall Won't Work
Are you serious? Gizmodo for your evidence? Here, try a real source:
Border Patrol agents back Trump wall, survey finds
And????????
I will agree with you that the so-called war on drugs is wholly counterproductive, operating to create more problems than it solves. But I fail to understand how fighting crime and terrorism is problematic.Our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror merely create more of the problem the right wing likes to complain about.
A republican trumpster is asking about the need for growth? That's usually something we hear from liberal environmentalists.Our birth rate is much too low. It just reached a 30 year low and if the trend continues as is likely, our birth rate will be less than the death rate within 10 to 15 years. We also have 10,000 people a day going into retirement and we are generating 150,000 to 250,000 jobs a month. Immigration is limited to about 680,000 a year. Do the math. If we're going to continue to grow, we are going to need a lot more people in the 21 century.Incorrect. We are a nation of 330,000,000 - one third of a billion - we already have the intellect and the warm bodies to produce whatever we need.We desperately need more legal immigrants...
What is this obsession with having to grow? Do you realize we had over a 100 million less people here in 1970 than we do today and we did just fine? And that was back in the day where automation wasn't even a concern.
Our economy is based on consumption and increased production of goods and services which is closely linked to growth in population. You need more people to consume and you need more people to produce otherwise you have no economic growth.
Then don't leave them behind. Stay with them, which is the logically natural position. Borders exist for a reason. To illegally cross a border is a crime -- kids or no kids.What if the risk to the child is greater if they are left behind?
People keep insisting the parents are horrible for parents for attempting to illegally immigrate with their children. I saw this meme and boy...it says all that needs to be said.
(disclaimer - not an endorsement of open borders etc - just maybe we shouldn't be so judgemental on the people that are fleeing horrible situations, it's not a decision undertake lightly).
View attachment 201075
/——/ Yeah, there was no illegals scampering over the border till Trump was sworn in. Proven fact Bwhahahaha BwhahahahaTrump manufactured the immigration issue so he can win the midterms. he is using the demise of children for his own political gain, which is sick.
don't get distracted, Democrats. stay focused on issues where Trump is vulnerable like the economy and North Korea and issues Americans care about like Stormy Daniels and Russia, and you will win in a landslide.
People keep insisting the parents are horrible for parents for attempting to illegally immigrate with their children. I saw this meme and boy...it says all that needs to be said.
(disclaimer - not an endorsement of open borders etc - just maybe we shouldn't be so judgemental on the people that are fleeing horrible situations, it's not a decision undertake lightly).
View attachment 201075
''ghh
I don't understand who it is you are criticizing here. What policies encourage people to put children in risky situations? Whose policies? are you referring to?You're ultimately not benefiting children through policies which encourage people to put them in risky situations in order to use them as human shields. When there are no ideal choices, you have to go with the one which is least-bad for everyone involved.
US immigration policies which give adults a pass on incarceration and prosecution when they're caught if they have children with them only encourage more people to drag children along on their border-crossings. The leftists' short-term, emotion-driven concept of "Awwww, the poor little kiddies" SOUNDS good - to them, anyway - but ultimately encourages people to put more children at risk.
What if the risk to the child is greater if they are left behind?
Trump manufactured the immigration issue??? Where did he get all the Muslims and Beaners? Did he truck them in?Trump manufactured the immigration issue so he can win the midterms. he is using the demise of children for his own political gain, which is sick.
don't get distracted, Democrats. stay focused on issues where Trump is vulnerable like the economy and North Korea and issues Americans care about like Stormy Daniels and Russia, and you will win in a landslide.
Trump manufactured the immigration issue??? Where did he get all the Muslims and Beaners? Did he truck them in?Trump manufactured the immigration issue so he can win the midterms. he is using the demise of children for his own political gain, which is sick.
don't get distracted, Democrats. stay focused on issues where Trump is vulnerable like the economy and North Korea and issues Americans care about like Stormy Daniels and Russia, and you will win in a landslide.
Re: Stormy Daniels: Who really gives a damn? Did the Democrats really care when President Blowjob got caught?
Re: North Korea: At the very least, Trump has put the little dictator in his place.
Re: Russia: The best thing we can do is form a strong conditional alliance with Russia for the express purpose of controlling the growing Islamic threat.
So all in all, Mr. Trump is looking pretty good. The spiteful nonsense being spewed by Liberal interests is impotent.
