[Hef]

Originally Posted by doktarZues

I would like to nominate this as one of the most ridiculous statements ever made on GT. I could spend hours pouring over how ignorant and ridiculous this sounds. Seriously.

(If I somehow missed a heavy dose of sarcasm, I apologize.)

If you believe the BS Bruce spews, you'd think the Pinkerton boys with Henry rifles are just around every corner.

[Atlas]

Originally Posted by Hef

If you believe the BS Bruce spews, you'd think the Pinkerton boys with Henry rifles are just around every corner.

Classic!

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by Hef

Wrong, as usual.

Your job exists only because your employer has a need and you fill it. Should that need cease to exist, or you fail to fill it adequately, or it can be filled by someone else better and/or cheaper, your employment will end, as it should. This may come as a shock to you, but businesses don't hire employees just because they feel some humanitarian need to put people to work.

Do you own a business that has a payroll? Have you ever? How many people do/did you have on your weekly payroll, just as an annual average?

Brucev has claimed a lot of things. Once he claimed to run a non-profit. He used to speak in "preacher tongue". He even occasionally claims to be a conservative.

What you have here is a Marxist revolutionary in sheeps clothing. Taunt him enough and the mask comes off from time to time.

[Z71bill]

Take your pick -

Would you rather have the US economy create -

7.5 million new private sector jobs that pay an average wage of $40,000

or

1 million private sector jobs that pay an average wage of $75,000 and also have 1 million new public sector jobs that pay $100,000?

If you can get one of the public sector jobs that pay $100K / or a $75K job - you want this option - no way you are not better off - unless your wage gets hit with a 50% tax ()

If you are one of the folks that ends up unemployed -you would be happy to take one of the $40K jobs.

Which is better for the country?

Pretty easy if you just think a little.

[Hef]

And that's it for Bruce******. He'll come back some time this week, after he's reviewed his previous posts in similar discussions so he can make sure his lies in this thread jive with previous lies. Pretty pathetic.

[Halojumper]

Originally Posted by Z71bill

I don't understand your comment. My posts have not been nasty or even harsh - I am not unhappy about anything

Okay, perhaps I misread what you were saying. It can be hard to determine actual emotions from the typed word, and it seemed to me that you were somewhat embittered over this whole thing and trying to make life fair.

ETA: LOL Just realized I mistook you for the OP. Ignore what I said

[Arquebus12]

Originally Posted by Slug71

Wow! You don't even know me and saying I shafted the business?

I really busted my ass trying to get ahead after my divorce. I had plans to move next year and get a temp job while I get things in order to start my own business. Everything seemed to be falling in place and bam, I GOT SHAFTED.

And there you go. It happens. So what? What are you going to do about it? What CAN you do about? Sue for your job back? Pffft. What kind of happy work environment would that lead to?

You can take the philosophical approach, and believe that fate/the Gods have deemed that they want you elsewhere, doing something else. Or, you can take the practical approach, which is "Well, damn. On to something else, then...", and take what you've learned to some other place.

Bottom line, you're part of a larger problem, which is when you run into trouble, you've turned to other sources to remedy them, when in fact the best solution is to first land suitable employment, then get damned good at not getting fired. When I say you've turned to other sources, you questioned the fairness of laws governing employment, implying that changes are needed. I disagree. If you've been wronged legally, by all means seek reproach. But if you've been fired under the rights of employers as they exist, then you move on to other things. You have no reason to believe that you are under any protections from getting screwed.

It's the right thing to do, and you'll be proud of yourself for doing it.

[gjk5]

There is a reason that the phrase "employee mentality" is an insult.

This thread demonstrates it quite well.

Bunch of entitled drones with inflated self worth here spouting off.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by gjk5

There is a reason that the phrase "employee mentality" is an insult.

This thread demonstrates it quite well.

You bring up a very good point and one that is often overlooked when career advice comes up in life.

If someone isn't going the self-employed route, perhaps the best piece of career advice a person can be given is to think like the owner. Treat the business as though it is yours. I've never really thought of it until now but its something I've always done....even as a youngster doing scutwork. It is very difficult at times but it will take you far.

[gjk5]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

You bring up a very good point and one that is often overlooked when career advice comes up in life.

If someone isn't going the self-employed route, perhaps the best piece of career advice a person can be given is to think like the owner. Treat the business as though it is yours. I've never really thought of it until now but its something I've always done....even as a youngster doing scutwork. It is very difficult at times but it will take you far.

Very good advice.

I had this outlook from a young age and owned my own business for over a decade after years of management jobs. I will NEVER be one of those turds with an employee POV. That is why I am a highly valued employee.

[AWoods]

We definitely should not have to pay employees to provide a service we don't want them to provide.

It's 100% pure violent aggression through and through. Even the mafia doesn't make you employ people you don't want.

[Haldor]

Originally Posted by arclight610

I suppose. But if I fire an employee the day before they are set to retire, I've already received the maximum amount of utility from them. I "promised" them retirement after X years of service, and they continued to stay for X years - 1 day in hopes of being able to retire. So in essence, I can just "use up" my employees and throw them away when I don't want to meet my end of the bargain.

Most people are vested in their pensions after 10 years (assuming they get one at all). That last day of work doesn't make a bit of difference in their pension eligibility unless they haven't reached 10 years yet.

Police/Fire/Military? They have a specific must reach date, but they also get their pensions as soon as they retire. I won't get mine until I'm 65.

[AtlantaR6]

Originally Posted by arclight610

I suppose. But if I fire an employee the day before they are set to retire, I've already received the maximum amount of utility from them. I "promised" them retirement after X years of service, and they continued to stay for X years - 1 day in hopes of being able to retire. So in essence, I can just "use up" my employees and throw them away when I don't want to meet my end of the bargain.

You must be referring to a pension which many company's are going away from. It's all about the portable 401k now, and if they fire me a week before retirement it has 0 impact on my financial well being.

[CAcop]

Originally Posted by AWoods

We definitely should not have to pay employees to provide a service we don't want them to provide.

It's 100% pure violent aggression through and through. Even the mafia doesn't make you employ people you don't want.

Yes, they do. It is one of their scams.

[CAcop]

Originally Posted by Haldor

Most people are vested in their pensions after 10 years (assuming they get one at all). That last day of work doesn't make a bit of difference in their pension eligibility unless they haven't reached 10 years yet.

Police/Fire/Military? They have a specific must reach date, but they also get their pensions as soon as they retire. I won't get mine until I'm 65.

Good point. I know a few people in the laborer's union and they have a pension that requires a certain mumber of years to get vested that is lower much lower than the number of years/age to retire with full benefits. If they got fired they would just have to wait it out, a long time but they just need to wait it out. Of course one I know gets fired all the time but she still finds work because she is good at what she does.

[Clutch Cargo]

Move to Texas, son. That's what we have here. If you part your hair on the wrong side, you get fired. Like life, it's not fair, but you suck it up and deal with it.

[Slug71]

Originally Posted by Clutch Cargo

Move to Texas, son. That's what we have here. If you part your hair on the wrong side, you get fired. Like life, it's not fair, but you suck it up and deal with it.

Thats how it is here in Oregon.

[Clutch Cargo]

Originally Posted by Taphius

An employer is not going to spend the resources on hiring you to just up and fire you for no reason.

You're no longer an asset is a common reason.

[DanaT]

Originally Posted by RustyL

Exactly, some of us get trapped into working for ass holes. Stastics show, people like their jobs, they dislike the people who run it.
I can only speak for myself, your employer is at will also. I do not agree with at will employement

I don't understand.

Are you a prisoner, slave, or indentured servant? If not, what is preventing you from leaving a bad situation?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

[DanaT]

Originally Posted by Slug71

There really isn't more to it.

On the 21st of Oct., a female courtesy clerk(under age) reported to a manager that a male(20 something) in dairy department had pressured her into having sex with him in his truck in the parking lot. The manager called down to our office and asked if she could come see us. She then changed her mind and asked for my partner to go up and see her. I was a little peeved by that and my partner also disagreed with that. He called our LP boss and told her what was happening. Next day I was fired.

In the 19th, one of the courtesy clerks knocked on our door three times and ran away. This happened during an investigation with a shoplifter. I know the manager that was present as a witness was peeved and reported it to upper management. Because I got along with staff, I suspect that it was my fault that the courtesy clerk did that.

A week before that, the store manager asked us to park where everyone else parks. We used to park behind the store and enter through the back where vendors usually come and go. We've always done this. I did ask my LP boss why this changed but we did start parking in the front of the store as requested.

Thats all thats happened in the recent couple of months that I know of.

But yes they didn't fight unemployment

After reading this is it clear why they got rid of you. Drama.

If they tell you to park where all employees are supposed to park. Why make a big deal about it?

So what if you are peeved that some girl wants you to come to her instead of vice versa. You don't agree and escalate it.

You leave out the shopping lifting thing now.

People knocking on door and running. Seems like a silly game.

But these types of episodes would tell me "how much management time (ergo money) on this person. For them it was easy. You were using more management resources than you were worth to them.

Sorry to be so blunt.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

[guns54]

Originally Posted by gjk5

No.

An employer should be able to terminate an employee at will. And honestly I think if it is a truly privately owned company then they should be able to do so for ANY reason they want with NO notice.

There doing back here, and with out any reason, Most have 20 years or more. And its not that they did some thing wrong, Just Telling them there done.I think they want all part time,Saves them money, Iam talking about steubenville, ohio.

[devildog2067]

Originally Posted by RustyL

Exactly, some of us get trapped into working for ass holes. Stastics show, people like their jobs, they dislike the people who run it.
I can only speak for myself, your employer is at will also. I do not agree with at will employement

What's not to "agree" with? Employers have the right to fire and employees have the right to quit.

[devildog2067]

Originally Posted by guns54

I think they want all part time,Saves them money

And what's wrong with that?

Employers pay employees to work. Employees get paid in such a way to maximize value for the company. Jobs are not charity. If it's cheaper for an employer to pay two part-time employees than to have a full-time employee with benefits, then that's what the employer will do.

If one of those employees wants to have a full-time job rather than a part-time job, then they need to demonstrate to the employer that they generate more value by being full-time than the additional cost of providing benefits. It's harder to do with some kinds of jobs than with others, but that's how the world works.

When jobs are more plentiful than employees, potential employees can use their scarcity power to negotiate a better deal. When potential employees are more plentiful than jobs, the power balance goes the other way.

[DanaT]

For those of you who have never had a European employment contract you would be shocked at them.

In general the labor unions are strong enough that they passed worker protection laws. The flip side is that there are also employer protection laws.

In Germany your notice period is generally between 3 months and 2 years (company financial problems void this). But it is a two way notice. As an employer, if I want to fire you I must give you three months notice. Note that I do not have to give you any time off to look for another job, etc, and if I can show any malice on your part during the 3months I can immediately terminate. I can also pay you out if you agree. Now, what I get from this is if you decide to leave, you must give me 3 months notice. If you do not give this notice I can hire a temporary employee to replace you (most likely a consultant which is expensive since getting an employee immediately is hard). You are then responsible, and the courts enforce, that you must pay the difference between your previous salary and any costs I have to replace you for the notice period.

So how many of you against employment at will want to have a system like this?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

[guns54]

Originally Posted by devildog2067

And what's wrong with that?

Employers pay employees to work. Employees get paid in such a way to maximize value for the company. Jobs are not charity. If it's cheaper for an employer to pay two part-time employees than to have a full-time employee with benefits, then that's what the employer will do.

If one of those employees wants to have a full-time job rather than a part-time job, then they need to demonstrate to the employer that they generate more value by being full-time than the additional cost of providing benefits. It's harder to do with some kinds of jobs than with others, but that's how the world works.

When jobs are more plentiful than employees, potential employees can use their scarcity power to negotiate a better deal. When potential employees are more plentiful than jobs, the power balance goes the other way.

Your right, But they should give them a warning that there job is gone.