No more OT for 8 million Thanks George.
Thomas Aldrich II
Old Salt card carrying Curmudgeon wrote:
> For thoes who have no heard, Bush is giving big business
> another sweat deal, by having the Dept of Labor to change the law
> about Over Time for 8 million middle class workers.
> --
> FUCK FRANCE NUKE PARIS
> http://www.thedissidentfrogman.com/dacha/000185.html
Lets see now, less taxes collected because of overtime, and more
unemployment due to cutting workers because of not paying overtime.
Combine that with the tax cut and what do you get.
More Bushshit
cg
<> wrote:
> For thoes who have no heard, Bush is giving big business
>another sweat deal, by having the Dept of Labor to change the law
>about Over Time for 8 million middle class workers.
The Dept. of Labor changed the law? Forget what the law was about.
Don't you have an issue that a department of the Administrative branch
of government can change a law?
--
cg
Hooda Gest
<Old Salt card carrying Curmudgeon> wrote in message
news:3lh4gvsvrje56m3c3...@4ax.com...
> For thoes who have no heard, Bush is giving big business
> another sweat deal, by having the Dept of Labor to change the law
> about Over Time for 8 million middle class workers.
Have we all panicked sufficiently yet? The above number is by those most
trustworthy about such things: Unions. The Labor Department is claiming
some 644,000 may lose overtime eligibility and these will consist of those
who are generally (informally) classed as "professionals" and "high-paid".
At the same time, some additional 1.3 million low income workers will become
eligible for OT pay where they have not been so before.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90887,00.html
But I am sure most of you Bush-haters won't bother to actually read the
article or keep an open mind.
--
Hooda Gest
"In a New York minute, everything can change..."
Duine
news:yAEMa.33153$0v4.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Your touch of sanity won't have any effect on those with an agenda. There
is a difference between having an OT requirement and paying OT. I manage
more than a few people who legally don't have to be paid OT, but they are
paid OT anyway. The reality is that you can't work people any significant
number of hours (other than managers) without OT or you lose your people.
For those who insist they deserve being paid for every minute of their time,
I always offer them reclassification as an hourly employee (with appropriate
wage) and a time clock. No one has ever accepted the offer.
Duine
Duine
> On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 23:02:23 GMT the fame writer, Duine wrote not
> much to be useful on, "Re: No more OT for 8 million Thanks
> George.",
>
> >Your touch of sanity won't have any effect on those with an agenda.
>
> hearing aids, dental, and eye glasses from Medicare Or his
> dropping covage of WW-II vets who were promises this covage. Or
> ya, he had to give his rich friends more money in what you call a
> tax cut. Yep take from the poor and the working class to give
> to the rich. You folks really need to take your blinders off
> before it's too late.
> --
>
Sheesh, you commented on everything except the subject... OT. I think
staring at those dust devils is making it difficult for you to focus.
Duine
cg
>On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 04:22:16 GMT, cg <cgrams007@{removethis}yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>Ray
>Big money has BOUGHT and paid for BUSH and his lies is is no credibility. They are doing it again and why not? He has and is giving the BIG MONEY PEOPLE everything they could ask for. All this while our troops and dependents get the shaft while on active duty and after retirement. Big money can't buy my vote.
Which is all fine and good but what does that have to do with the
ability of an department of the Administrative branch being able to
change a law in the first place?
--
cg
cg
<> wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 04:22:16 GMT the fame writer, cg wrote not
>much to be useful on, "Re: No more OT for 8 million Thanks
>George.",
>
>>The Dept. of Labor changed the law? Forget what the law was about.
>>Don't you have an issue that a department of the Administrative branch
>>of government can change a law?
>
> Must be the heat, what are saying? Dept of Labor is
>control by the Administration, Bush appoints the Secretary of
>Labor, so he puts his man in control and has the law changed to 8
>million working class folks no longer get paid overtime, just
>straight time no mader how many hours they work per week.
Congress passes laws. The Administrative branch enforces them. Only
Congress can change a law.
--
cg
Chief Broom
{removethis}yahoo.com says...
>
> Congress passes laws. The Administrative branch enforces them. Only
> Congress can change a law.
Reductionist semantics.
Why do you suppose they teach courses in "Administrative Law" in law
schools?
A huge amount of authority is delegated in various ways to
administrative bodies and personnel. Exercise of that authority often
gives shape to laws enacted by Congress (and other lawmaking bodies at
other levels of government). Regulations can carry force of law, and
regulations promulgated pursuant to enacted law can, and often do, give
rise to argument over whether the administratively promulgated
regulations effect legislative intent with fidelity. And regulations
morph, both in language and in practical implementation. Policies
adopted in relation to statutory law are an aspect of law whether or
not, in the narrowest sense, those who dictate policy or exercise power
and discretion bearing on manner of enforcement carry the lawmaking
authority of legislators.
And what about courts? It may be true in some sense that the Supreme
Court cannot "change" a law, but it is a sense that adheres to strict
usage at the expense of clear meaning.
cg
<chiefSPAM...@pobox.com> wrote:
>In article <h937gv4nq2d36o24v...@4ax.com>, cgrams007@
>{removethis}yahoo.com says...
>>
>> Congress passes laws. The Administrative branch enforces them. Only
>> Congress can change a law.
>
>Reductionist semantics.
Whose? Your's or mine?
>
>Why do you suppose they teach courses in "Administrative Law" in law
>schools?
<snip of written and then deleted response>
>
>A huge amount of authority is delegated in various ways to
>administrative bodies and personnel. Exercise of that authority often
>gives shape to laws enacted by Congress (and other lawmaking bodies at
>other levels of government). Regulations can carry force of law, and
>regulations promulgated pursuant to enacted law can, and often do, give
>rise to argument over whether the administratively promulgated
>regulations effect legislative intent with fidelity. And regulations
>morph, both in language and in practical implementation. Policies
>adopted in relation to statutory law are an aspect of law whether or
>not, in the narrowest sense, those who dictate policy or exercise power
>and discretion bearing on manner of enforcement carry the lawmaking
>authority of legislators.
This is exactly the problem I am referencing. Congress has abdicated
so much to the Administrative branch.
>
>And what about courts? It may be true in some sense that the Supreme
>Court cannot "change" a law, but it is a sense that adheres to strict
>usage at the expense of clear meaning.
Where does this leave the "activist" courts?
I have no need to get into semantics with you. You know exactly what
I am saying and I know exactly what you are saying. We may view the
"goodness" of its impacts differently but I believe we are on the same
frequency as far as the reason those impacts are allowed.
And even if that is not the case, so be it.
--
cg
Chief Broom
{removethis}yahoo.com says...
> >
> >Reductionist semantics.
> Whose? Your's or mine?
Yours. You dismissed any and all substantive point there might have been
in the post you were replying to by citing a principle that may pass as
truth in junior high civics but hardly captures practical, political
reaility.
>
> >
> >Why do you suppose they teach courses in "Administrative Law" in law
> >schools?
>
> <snip of written and then deleted response>
So, why do you suppose they teach courses in "Administrative Law" in law
schools? I didn't post this with intended sarcasm. The fact is that
there is much more to the body of law than what legislatures legislate
and only legislatures can change. I took your post as an unequivocal,
unambiguous, unqualified denial of a significant aspect of the law by
which our society is governed.
>
> This is exactly the problem I am referencing. Congress has abdicated
> so much to the Administrative branch.
We could probably agree in many respects. But Congress has to deligate.
It cannot possily flesh out all of the legistation it adopts. Where
proper deligation ends and abdication begins is to some considerable
extent a matter of perspective over which reasonable (not to mention
unreasonable) persons often disagree.
>
> >
> >And what about courts? It may be true in some sense that the Supreme
> >Court cannot "change" a law, but it is a sense that adheres to strict
> >usage at the expense of clear meaning.
>
> Where does this leave the "activist" courts?
I'm not sure I follow your question. I might not have made my point
clearly. I believe courts, including the Supreme Courts, have often
overstepped their proper authority. I'm probably a moderate, at least
with respect to the bulk of issues.
>
> I have no need to get into semantics with you. You know exactly what
> I am saying and I know exactly what you are saying. We may view the
> "goodness" of its impacts differently but I believe we are on the same
> frequency as far as the reason those impacts are allowed.
I simply responded to your very literal and unqualified post, which I
took to commit considerable rounding error in rejecting out-of-hand to
post it replied to. Did I misunderstand you? If so, what did you mean?
If not, then my point stands and you really haven't met it.
>
> And even if that is not the case, so be it.
I thought this was a discussion group. I was discussing. Have Wally give
you some blood pressure medicine. I don't need it.
Reid Stott
<chiefSPAM...@pobox.com> wrote:
>Did I misunderstand you? If so, what did you mean?
>If not, then my point stands and you really haven't met it.
>>
>> And even if that is not the case, so be it.
>
>I thought this was a discussion group. I was discussing. Have Wally give
>you some blood pressure medicine. I don't need it.
Wow. Now *this* was worth installing a newsreader.
Even if just for a few minutes.
Chief Broom
ch...@mindspring.com says...
>
> Wow. Now *this* was worth installing a newsreader.
>
> Even if just for a few minutes.
Hey darlin'. I've been gonna give you a call.
I'm surprised to see you take momentary leave from marital bliss to poke
a nose back in these parts.
I just took a peek at your blog a bit ago. Pretty damn impressive.
Reid Stott
<chiefSPAM...@pobox.com> wrote:
>Hey darlin'.
Watch yer mouth, Asshole.
>I'm surprised to see you take momentary leave from marital bliss to poke
>a nose back in these parts.
I was prodded by an ancient instinct for self defense when I heard my
name was mentioned here. Installed a newsreader to just for the
occasion.
And look what I find.
My instincts are still good.
(and the wife is in bed)
Darlin'
Chief Broom
foto...@mindspring.com says...
>
> I was prodded by an ancient instinct for self defense when I heard my
> name was mentioned here. Installed a newsreader to just for the
> occasion.
>
> And look what I find.
>
> My instincts are still good.
Amazing, isn't it?
Like some rare, darkly portentous planetary alignment.
The circumstances beg for ritual sacrifice.
J&K Copeland
"Chief Broom" <chiefSPAM...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.196d5086e...@news-central.giganews.com...
The Social Security Law fills a book, literally. Imagine a copy of the St
James version of the Bible. A copy of the Law is actually thicker than the
Bible.
Every separate paragraph is numbered, chapter and verse.
The explanation of that one Law, would and does fill a small library. SSA
staffers and legislative assistants continuously refine the meaning of the
law and "the intent of Congress." There are literally hundreds of people
employed, whose job it is to write manuals that explain various aspects of
the law, so that it can be consistently applied throughout the
Administration. (As a newly minted SSA claims authorizer, I was given a new
set of manuals, AND a new two shelf book case. The manuals filled a set of
full-sized notebooks that spanned the full width of a 5' government issue
desk. The various benefit tables were a completely separate set of note
books that filled the bookcase. Generally, I spent between 30 minutes and
two hours reading and filing new materials in the manuals, every Friday
afternoon..
The benefit authorizers had a completely different, but just as extensive
set of manuals.
The claims, and clerical clerks had about two feet of manuals.
The claims insurance specialists had about one foot of manuals.
The CA library, contained a very large card file, (about 3 feet tall and
five foot wide) full of index cards with a synopsis of every court case
involving the social security administration.
Is a hand-written divorce decree from Mexico, legal. (It was)
If someone is born male, but undergoes a full sex-change operation, are they
male or female for Social Security purposes. (Benefit rates use to be
calculated differently between the genders. No longer. BTW, whatever they
were on their birth date, controls.)
Does the presumption of legitimacy of offspring as applied in Louisiana,
overcome the fact that the presumed father was incarcerated in Alaska the
whole time and subsequently died in prison. (It did).
Does a Texas sheriff's statement that he wasn't about to search every dry
(oil) hole in his county, warrant a presumed finding of death, with the
wife's statement that she killed her husband. (It did).
Was a finding of involuntary manslaughter by a Texas judge warranted, since
the wife shot her husband six times? (Wasn't anything we could do about it
really. It didn't matter that the judge later married the lady.)
Does an illegitimate child have exactly the same claim on benefits as a
legitimate child. (Up until 1968...no. With the famous phrase, "The sins
of the parent shall not be visited on the child", a federal judge created a
whole new class of beneficiaries, that may not have been the intent of
Congress, until that judge said it was..)
Does, "How's the little bastard? Is he still wearing out those wonderful
breasts of yours? I'm jealous." in a letter from a soldier subsequently
killed in Vietnam, constitute acknowledgement of paternity? (The original
claims authorizer said "No", but was reversed on appeal.)
Can a dentist be considered "retired" for Social Security purposes, with a
$70,000 income? (Yes. In previous years his income was in the quarter to
half million dollar range. He was actually a dental surgeon, and
apparently, damn good one.)
One CA documented a case of one woman producing 21 children by 19 different
men.
One CA had a woman, who simply had NO substantive evidence of her birth. No
paperwork, what-so-ever. She had never been counted on a census and had
never had so much as a library card. The final decision came down to a
field rep's statement....."She looks like she's 65 years old."
The LAW, as written, is just a guideline. ALJ's, Federal Judges, policy
writers, legislative assistants, hundreds, (if not thousands) of
bureaucrats, individual judgments and individual decisions, Justice
Department opinions........all have their place and their impact
on.....determining "the intent of Congress".
James.....
cg
Yah sure. I see some things haven't changed an iota.
I'll be most happy to simply leave it with the thought (opinion) that
there are far too many details of the law left to the Administrative
branch of the Federal government. This allows Congress to side-step
their responsibilities and provides the members of Congress with the
opportunity to shift/sidestep blame.
--
cg
cg
<> wrote:
>On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 01:58:38 GMT the fame writer, cg wrote not
>much to be useful on, "Re: No more OT for 8 million Thanks
>George.",
>
>>Congress passes laws. The Administrative branch enforces them. Only
>>Congress can change a law.
>
> As far as I know, Congress didn't change the law, the
>Dept of Labor did. Now I might be wrong on this, but that's the
>gist I been picking up from the news shows dealing with it.
Wouldn't that violate "separation of powers"? Do you have an issue
with making that line blurry?
--
cg
Chief Broom
{removethis}yahoo.com says...
> Yah sure. I see some things haven't changed an iota.
>
> I'll be most happy to simply leave it with the thought (opinion) that
> there are far too many details of the law left to the Administrative
> branch of the Federal government. This allows Congress to side-step
> their responsibilities and provides the members of Congress with the
> opportunity to shift/sidestep blame.
What seems not to have changed is that you like it when you can make
sweeping pronouncements in judgement or outright dismissal of what
others post, but turn suddenly very cranky when you find yourself
challenged, at least by some for whom you apparently carry circulating
antibodies.
As I dimly recall, you somehow got out of joint when I last dropped by
here and PhotoDude came in briefly to spar. This time I came in quietly
in follow-up to a stale post to ask for an email address, and you, in
familiar character, posted a transparently snide smiley in response to
what you took as a shot aimed at me from Floyd. Do you have an issue?
Gotta go. It's been a grin.
Hooda Gest
<Old Salt card carrying Curmudgeon> wrote in message
> On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 23:02:23 GMT the fame writer, Duine wrote not
> much to be useful on, "Re: No more OT for 8 million Thanks
> George.",
>
> >> article or keep an open mind.
>
> lies are really truths. Since what the Labor dept is saying is
> what Bush wants them to say, I am surprise they didn't say there
> are WMD in Iraq too.
And the unions, being solidly in the Democrat's pocket, will say what the
Democrats want them to say.
So... read both sides and try to make up your own minds. Unlike O.S. who has
no mind to actually make up.
--
Hooda Gest
"The only thing I do immediately is procrastinate."
Hooda Gest
"Rick B." <via...@oohay.com> wrote in message
news:bur6gv49pf2671shi...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 23:02:23 GMT, "Duine" <du...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >For those who insist they deserve being paid for every minute of their
time,
> >I always offer them reclassification as an hourly employee (with
appropriate
> >wage) and a time clock. No one has ever accepted the offer.
> >
> in their eyes. Always make the options either/or, that way you can
> blameshift the decision on them.
>
> Problem is, they then spend as much energy finding ways to do less on
> their job as they do, doing their job. Real win-win situation there
> Einstein.
A smart employer will pay his employees what they are worth. If that
includes OT pay, then they will get OT pay. The smart employer will have
loyal employees who do quality work. A dumb employer will point to rules and
guidelines, shortchange his employees, suffer from high turnover and poor
quality work and wonder why.
Hooda Gest
> On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:25:50 GMT, "Hooda Gest" <Be@One_With.Calm>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Have we all panicked sufficiently yet? The above number is by those most
> >trustworthy about such things: Unions. The Labor Department is claiming
> >some 644,000 may lose overtime eligibility and these will consist of
those
> >who are generally (informally) classed as "professionals" and
"high-paid".
> >At the same time, some additional 1.3 million low income workers will
become
> >eligible for OT pay where they have not been so before.
> >
> >http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90887,00.html
> >
> >But I am sure most of you Bush-haters won't bother to actually read the
> >article or keep an open mind.
>
> country. Where I sit, it's starting salary for recent grads in some
> positions. In most major metropolitan areas, that will hardly qualify
> you for a studio condo. Any rule that fixes a number like that, which
> will be used nationwide is bad law and should be challenged on that
> fact alone.
Yeah, I don't especially like that $65000 figure either but I don't quite
understand how it is calculated in. Is it in addition to the "professional"
(salaried) status, for example? Or is it a standalone reason to be able to
deny OT pay? And, if it is, can those hourly workers who make over $65000
per year refuse to work overtime without fearing employer retribution?
Hooda Gest
"Duine" <du...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_6KMa.33432$3o3.2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
He's just a parrot for the anti-Bush propaganda put out by the "Vast
Left-Wing Conspiracy" that's been trying to get Bush since he was elected.
(satire alert!)
Chief Broom
{removethis}yahoo.com says...
> >
> > As far as I know, Congress didn't change the law, the
> >Dept of Labor did. Now I might be wrong on this, but that's the
> >gist I been picking up from the news shows dealing with it.
>
> Wouldn't that violate "separation of powers"? Do you have an issue
> with making that line blurry?
You and I can probably agree that it would be difficult to overstate the
importance of Separation of Powers in government under our Constitution.
But you seem to view the principle in binary, black-and-white terms. The
lines have always been blurry, more in some areas than others, with
constant shifting in response to sociopoliticall change over time. This
blur, and the recurring encroachments and the competition at the
boundaries generates a great deal of tension. Sooner or later,
everyone's ox is gored one way or another. I don't dispute that the
lines are often crossed improperly. What I challenged what I took as an
oversimplification of the system and how it works. The blur exists by
necessity. It always has and it always will. Maintaining the line -- or
something like a line -- in some approximation of the best place has
always been and will always be an ongoing struggle. And it is largely a
healthy, if often consumptive and frustrating, struggle. It cannot be as
simple as you would have it be.
ntn
17,000 + posts here since I last looked in, and what rears its head?
You probably deserve a club t-shirt.
I trust all is well with you and yours.
--
ntn
Chief Broom
says...
>
> 17,000 + posts here since I last looked in, and what rears its head?
>
> You probably deserve a club t-shirt.
I don't think I'll be getting one anytime soon. But I appreciate the
sentiment.
>
> I trust all is well with you and yours.
Not complaining. And I hope the same for you.
Ya know, a reunion would be nice. We could have it at Reid's.
Reid Stott
<chiefSPAM...@pobox.com> wrote:
>I don't think I'll be getting one anytime soon.
Oh, but the club t-shirt is very nice, and you're quite deserving.
It's almost "family-safe," because on first glance, it looks like the
cursive script says "AllStars." But it doesn't.
Reid Stott
<chiefSPAM...@pobox.com> wrote:
>As I dimly recall, you somehow got out of joint when I last dropped by
>here and PhotoDude came in briefly to spar.
More like shadow boxing.
Maybe we should be banned for being such troublemakers. On rare
occasion.
Duine
A smart employer will also dump losers.
Duine
Duine
> On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 23:43:54 GMT the fame writer, Duine wrote not
> much to be useful on, "Re: No more OT for 8 million Thanks
> George.",
>
> >staring at those dust devils is making it difficult for you to focus.
>
> had his fingers in the over time thing as well as the canceling
> benefits for WW-II vets, to Medicare dropping there covage on
> what I brought up. You see the topic was about George, the
> Overtime thing was just the latest thing he has done to screw us,
> unless your a millionaire.
> --
The scary thing is that I actually understand your logic... it's like that
7-degrees of separation thing.
Duine
Duine
news:bur6gv49pf2671shi...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 23:02:23 GMT, "Duine" <du...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >For those who insist they deserve being paid for every minute of their
time,
> >I always offer them reclassification as an hourly employee (with
appropriate
> >wage) and a time clock. No one has ever accepted the offer.
> >
> Brilliant. I'm sure that improves their morale and makes you a saint
> in their eyes. Always make the options either/or, that way you can
> blameshift the decision on them.
Typically knee-jerk reaction to real-life, typically by someone who puts in
60% to a job and whine they don't get 120% pay. Try going back and
re-reading what I wrote. We pay OT even though it isn't required. However,
if you expect OT for an extra 15 minutes of time, opt to be re-classified
and punch a clock. The reality is that most people (myself included) can't
claim to devote every minute of their paid work day to work. It's called
give-a-little, get-a-little, and those I manage prefer it that way.
>
> Problem is, they then spend as much energy finding ways to do less on
> their job as they do, doing their job. Real win-win situation there
> Einstein.
No, it's a terminate-terminate situation.
Duine
Hooda Gest
A really smart employer won't hire losers in the first place. :)
--
Hooda Gest
"In a New York minute, everything can change..."
cg
You have no idea how I took Floyd's post. Have we discussed it? Have
I posted a translation of my smiley? You need to stop taking things
so personally.
I have no issue. I just don't particularly care for your logic or
posting style. The long past discussion of jury nullification in mnid
is (was?) a classic example of your ability to obfuscate. You should
have been a lawyer.
>
>Gotta go. It's been a grin.
--
cg
cg
Things are rarely as simple as some would have them. Including your
assumption about how I view this matter.
--
cg
cg
<> wrote:
>On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 10:57:11 GMT the fame writer, cg wrote not
>much to be useful on, "Re: No more OT for 8 million Thanks
>George.",
>
>>Wouldn't that violate "separation of powers"? Do you have an issue
>>with making that line blurry?
>
> No, since the only thing they changed was the dollar
>amount one needs to make per year to quifie for Over time.
>Besides the Dept of Labor is not part of any of the three
>branches of govt. They were set up by Congress.
I'm not sure I understand. I did a little looking and discovered the
following at the dol site;
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That there is hereby
created an executive department in the Government to be called the
Department of Labor, with a Secretary of Labor, who shall be the head
thereof, to be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate; ..."
from: <http://www.dol.gov/asp/programs/history/organact.htm>
The quote is taken from "Public Law 426-62: An Act to create a
Department of Labor" which is part of the URL listed above. I'm not a
expert on the Dept. of Labor and have done very little research but
this seems to be at odds with your post. What am I missing?
--
cg
Duine
<snip>
> >Typically knee-jerk reaction to real-life, typically by someone who puts
in
> >60% to a job and whine they don't get 120% pay. Try going back and
> >re-reading what I wrote. We pay OT even though it isn't required.
However,
> >if you expect OT for an extra 15 minutes of time, opt to be re-classified
> >and punch a clock. The reality is that most people (myself included)
can't
> >claim to devote every minute of their paid work day to work. It's called
> >give-a-little, get-a-little, and those I manage prefer it that way.
>
> What a d/ipshit you are.
Oh, that's eloquent!
>I read what you said and figured you for what
> you are. An asshole manager. The worst kind, you think you're a
> sweetheart, but what you don't know is that every chance your people
> will stab you in the back. Because you can't see the simple common
> sense to this, you don't even realize what's happening.
OK, then what we are dealing with here is your very low reading
comprehension skills coupled with significant issues you have with
authority figures. I don't know if this began when you were a child and
your mean parents insisted you do homework instead of watching TV or later
when your mean supervisor insisted that you put down the newspaper and get
to work. I recommend that you try forming a religious cult since your work
ethics will probably preclude much success in normal employment.
> Exactly why do you think I put in 60% and expect 120% ?
I don't know... perhaps because you are a parasite, sitting there whining
while your co-workers pick up the slack?
> Clueless beyond belief....Your statements show so little understanding
> of human nature it's amazing you have any ability to communicate with
> the species at all.
> >
I pretty much understand you, although I admit communication with you is a
lost cause.
> >>
> >> Problem is, they then spend as much energy finding ways to do less on
> >> their job as they do, doing their job. Real win-win situation there
> >> Einstein.
> >
> >No, it's a terminate-terminate situation.
>
> Right. That's a sure fire way to improve morale. Exactly the methods
> they use in Barbados. Of course they need armed guards at the doors,
> but hey, what's a little intimidation right ? For every person you
> intimidate by terminating, five others are going to find a way out of
> you're little paradise of managerial buffoonery. Then you end up with
> a place full of idiots who require constant babysitting.
>
Actually, getting rid of workplace parasites does improve morale since often
it's the other employees who are the first to recognize and complain about a
loser. They appreciate no longer having to deal with the frustration of
picking up the slack for non-productive losers.
> Yes, you're an astounding and of course indispensable manager.
> >
Thank you, although "outstanding" may be more appropriate.
> >Duine
>
> Change that to dummy.
> >
Oh, more eloquence!
Duine
Duine
>
<snip>
> > A smart employer will also dump losers.
>
> A really smart employer won't hire losers in the first place. :)
>
Correct in a perfect world, but not realistic. Hiring interviews are not
infallible... for some strange reason candidates tend to suppress or
minimize their negative points. :) Some employers have tried to address
this problem by using tests to profile personality traits. We don't do it,
but based on discussions with others who work for companies that do, I
question their effectiveness.
In any case, at least with my work, the losers are very few and far between.
Duine
Duine
> On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:27:42 GMT, "Duine" <du...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
<snip>
> >OK, then what we are dealing with here is your very low reading
> >comprehension skills coupled with significant issues you have with
> >authority figures. I don't know if this began when you were a child and
> >your mean parents insisted you do homework instead of watching TV or
later
> >when your mean supervisor insisted that you put down the newspaper and
get
> >to work. I recommend that you try forming a religious cult since your
work
> >ethics will probably preclude much success in normal employment.
>
> I'll take your suggestions under advisement. Oh, by the way, where I
> grew up we didn't have TV.
> >
Good... on both points.
> >> Exactly why do you think I put in 60% and expect 120% ?
> >
> >I don't know... perhaps because you are a parasite, sitting there whining
> >while your co-workers pick up the slack?
>
> Interesting. That wasn't reflected in my last evaluation, but perhaps
> its the reading comprehension problem you imagine I have. I thought I
> understood the statement "Successfully juggled what effectively
> amounts to several full time positions." Is that parasitical ?
> >
You asked that I provide an explanation for your conduct and I took a guess.
In hindsight, a better response would have been "I don't know you, so I
can't explain why you are like that."
<snip>
> >Actually, getting rid of workplace parasites does improve morale since
often
> >it's the other employees who are the first to recognize and complain
about a
> >loser. They appreciate no longer having to deal with the frustration of
> >picking up the slack for non-productive losers.
>
> I will agree with that point. However, you can with due diligence
> avoid hiring losers to begin with and if for some reason an employee
> turns into a loser after a period of time, isn't it worth the effort
> to find out why instead of simply terminating them and starting over
> again ?
Yes, if the person was previously a good performer. No, if the person was
previously a borderline performer.
Until such time as we hook potential employees up to machines or subject
them to intensive analysis, hiring will be as much an art as a science.
Luckily, most bad choices missed during the hiring process are caught during
the probabtionary period.
> I can only speak from my own experiences, but usually a good employee
> doesn't suddenly become a bad employee for no reason. You can't always
> do anything about it or even discover the real reasons but it
> certainly, if nothing else shows that employees and the other
> employees that they are important as people not just a "warm body" if
> you make the effort.
> >
<snip>
I don't know when this became a treatise on Management 101, but the original
subject was the proposed change in OT rules. I felt it was pretty-much a
non-issue while you (apparently) felt it was the end of the world.
> >
> >Oh, more eloquence!
> >
> >Duine
> >
> You might want to check the definition of that word, you seem to be a
> bit confused.
Not at all... I found your attempts at insults indicative of your eloquence.
Duine
cg
<> wrote:
>On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 07:28:32 GMT the fame writer, cg wrote not
>much to be useful on, "Re: No more OT for 8 million Thanks
>George.",
>
>>"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
>>United States of America in Congress assembled, That there is hereby
>>created an executive department in the Government to be called the
>>Department of Labor, with a Secretary of Labor, who shall be the head
>>thereof, to be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and
>>consent of the Senate; ..."
>
> They may be under the executive branch, they them selfs
>are not the executive branch, The President is.
OK.
--
cg
Duine
news:mobfgv4584uk94dul...@4ax.com...
> >is a difference between having an OT requirement and paying OT. I manage
> >more than a few people who legally don't have to be paid OT, but they are
> >paid OT anyway. The reality is that you can't work people any
significant
<snip>
> Not sure how things are now days but. Twenty some years ago I know of a
> company that had their people come in 15 minutes early each work day.
> This was done in just a couple of states. The ruling was that they had
> to pay each & every person working for the company in every state 15
> minutes over time even if they knew they had not come in early. I know
> one guy who got I think it was $85.00 or so & he had not come in early
> but for when he wanted to.
>
The requirement is related to how you are categorized, hourly or salaried
(we use the term salaried non-exempt or salaried exempt), based on
job description and pay level. I would guess you are most familiar with the
hourly/non-exempt classification since that does require pay for all time on
the job and often includes punching a time clock. However, as I mentioned
before, we generally pay OT to exempt employees regardless of the legal
requirement whenever significant time is involved.
> In other words if you work you get paid for every minute worked. As
> screwed up as it is today its no telling how it is. I for one would tell
> them to kiss my ass & walk off before I worked for nothing.
>
> --
>
> Ray
Legally, it depends on your job classification and it has always been that
way.
Duine
cg
>On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 01:57:29 GMT, cg <cgrams007@{removethis}yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 10:58:31 -0500, Ray <rcd...@wayahooo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 04:22:16 GMT, cg <cgrams007@{removethis}yahoo.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:44:12 -0700, Old Salt card carrying Curmudgeon
>>>><> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> For thoes who have no heard, Bush is giving big business
>>>>>another sweat deal, by having the Dept of Labor to change the law
>>>>>about Over Time for 8 million middle class workers.
>>>>
>>>>The Dept. of Labor changed the law? Forget what the law was about.
>>>>Don't you have an issue that a department of the Administrative branch
>>>>of government can change a law?
>>>
>>>Ray
>>>Big money has BOUGHT and paid for BUSH and his lies is is no credibility. They are doing it again and why not? He has and is giving the BIG MONEY PEOPLE everything they could ask for. All this while our troops and dependents get the shaft while on active duty and after retirement. Big money can't buy my vote.
>>
>>Which is all fine and good but what does that have to do with the
>>ability of an department of the Administrative branch being able to
>>change a law in the first place?
Okie dokie, I guess.
--
cg
cg
>On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 12:44:49 GMT, cg <cgrams007@{removethis}yahoo.com>
>Not sure of what is Okie dokie at least for what I said however if your
>buying I'm drinking. <g>
I'm not sure what your response prior to my "Okie dokie, I guess."
was.
I thought you were buying.
--
cg
Duine
<snip>
> >
> >The requirement is related to how you are categorized, hourly or salaried
> >(we use the term salaried non-exempt or salaried exempt), based on
> >job description and pay level. I would guess you are most familiar with
the
> >hourly/non-exempt classification since that does require pay for all time
on
> >the job and often includes punching a time clock. However, as I
mentioned
> >before, we generally pay OT to exempt employees regardless of the legal
> >requirement whenever significant time is involved.
> >
> >> In other words if you work you get paid for every minute worked. As
> >> screwed up as it is today its no telling how it is. I for one would
tell
> >> them to kiss my ass & walk off before I worked for nothing.
> >
> >Legally, it depends on your job classification and it has always been
that
> >way.
> >
> >Duine
>
> Actually I am aware of both. Just haven't kept up with any changes so
> stayed out of the latest & bestest as they say. Salaried is a screw job
> & has been for some time as your not on the clock & can be worked 24/7
> but most get paid very well for the work done. Some don't & also they
> are open to being fired at will by who ever swings the big stick. Been
> there & done it.
> --
>
> Ray
Yes, it can be a screw job, and yes, it can pay very well. Employment at
will is generally the "law of the land".
Duine
> Big money has BOUGHT and paid for BUSH and his lies is is no credibility.
They are doing it again and why not? He has and is giving the BIG MONEY
PEOPLE everything they could ask for. All this while our troops and
dependents get the shaft while on active duty and after retirement. Big
money can't buy my vote.
> BOOT BUSH. OUT THE DOOR. IN 2000 AND 4.
>
cg
>On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 01:56:37 GMT, cg <cgrams007@{removethis}yahoo.com>
>There you go thinking again.
Its a problem I have.
--
cg
Chief Broom
{removethis}yahoo.com says...
>
> I posted a translation of my smiley? You need to stop taking things
> so personally.
You've been taking lessons from Wally.
>
> I have no issue. I just don't particularly care for your logic or
> posting style. The long past discussion of jury nullification in mnid
> is (was?) a classic example of your ability to obfuscate. You should
> have been a lawyer.
It isn't necessarily the case that every distinction that isn't clear to
you results from obfuscation.
What did I post that you would dispute in terms of either factual basis
or logic?
cg
<chiefSPAM...@pobox.com> wrote:
>It isn't necessarily the case that every distinction that isn't clear to
>you results from obfuscation.
I'm not so sure that I don't like this line.
--
cg
Chief Broom
{removethis}yahoo.com says...
>
> >you results from obfuscation.
>
> I'm not so sure that I don't like this line.
You're welcome to use it anytime you like.
Peace for now?
Chief Broom
eI...@ChangeThisPart.com says...
>
> Hee hee. Hey, I've been waxing the boat all weekend. I'm innocent.
> BTW, you have one heck of a memory.
Maybe at times, but it seems to have become highly selective.
>
> >> I have no issue. I just don't particularly care for your logic or
> >> posting style. The long past discussion of jury nullification in mnid
> >> is (was?) a classic example of your ability to obfuscate. You should
> >> have been a lawyer.
>
> LOL !
Me too. As ever, when facts, reason, and overall grasp of a subject
utterly fail in support of so-called discussion, reach for the handy old
ad hominem jab, no matter how lame.
Chief Broom
foto...@mindspring.com says...
> Oh, but the club t-shirt is very nice, and you're quite deserving.
> It's almost "family-safe," because on first glance, it looks like the
> cursive script says "AllStars." But it doesn't.
OK, so where is mine?
Chief Broom
ab...@grafixwear.com says...
>
> If you still live at the same address I'm fairly confident something
> could be arranged.
Indeed, I do. Is there really such a thing? I assumed it was typical PD
BS.
(That should bring him back out of the woodwork.)
Reid Stott
<chiefSPAM...@pobox.com> wrote:
>I assumed it was typical PD
>BS.
This assumption makes my life more entertaining. When I tell someone,
"I'd like to give you $100," they assume it is "typical PD BS," and I
get to keep my money.
In this case, I can only state that the object exists, and I wear it,
but the source of the object is somewhat mysterious. When the
suspicious package arrived at my home unannounced, I called out the
Bomb Squad. When they saw what was inside, they asked if they could
get one for their boss.
>(That should bring him back out of the woodwork.)
With a four week delay. That's about how often I get on Usenet. It's
taken me this long just to add a sig.
--
Reid Stott
abuse AT photodude.com
http://www.photodude.com/
--
Reid Stott
abuse AT photodude.com
http://www.photodude.com/
Reid Stott
wrote:
>Hey, I've been waxing the boat all weekend.
Hey, this is a family newsgroup. If you spent the weekend in the
Barcalounger with some porn videos, "waxing your boat," we really
don't need to hear about it.
Reid Stott
wrote:
>It's
>taken me this long just to add a sig.
Or two. I'm rusty.
Reid Stott
wrote:
>It's nice to se you posting again, Reid.
And it's nice to see you've got your blood pressure under control. But
not nearly as much fun.