From: Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) on


John Rennie wrote:
>
> Earl Evleth wrote:
> > On 28/01/10 21:11, in article hjsr1k0uv9(a)news5.newsguy.com,
> > "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <evgmsop(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >> She was a bit startled when I pointed out that
> >> she would not be able to use her electric typewriter, either. (She
> >> worked at home, typing scripts for free-lance screen-writers!)
> >
> >
> > Reminds me, we still have ours. An IBM selectric, which had a correcting
> > tape, a big thing at the time. It is down stairs in the cave.
> >
> > We had it with a French key board since generally the French keyboard is a
> > bit more universal than the American. The only problem is that several of
> > the letters are in different location, but when typing I can switch over
> > from the English to the French sequence in a minute or so. I only type using
> > the French sequence. Occasionally the Mac switches over without my noticing
> > until I hit the "m" or "a", or whatever.
> >
> >
> Blah, blah, blah. You did your best to miss the point, Earl.
> The lady possessed an IQ of 160 (snipped by you) and yet was
> quite dumb.
>
IQ might not measure your knowledge of which products you own use
mains power, I'm suspecting.



--
"Gonna take a sedimental journey", what Old Man River actually
said.
From: Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) on


Michael wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) wrote:
> >
> > Donna Evleth wrote:
> >>> From: "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)"
> >>> <tribuyltinafpant(a)yahoo.co.uk>
> >>> Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave to
> >>> those who come after us.
> >>> Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe,alt.activism.death-penalty
> >>> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:04:25 +0000
> >>> Subject: Re: Dutch McDo's 'wrong' to fire worker over cheese slice...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "tim...." wrote:
> >>>> "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)"
> >>>> <tribuyltinafpant(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>>> news:4B604C46.808AB2A7(a)yahoo.co.uk...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> The situation is different where the individual's job is to "dispense"
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> food as they could have some influence on deciding what is to be thrown
> >>>>>> away.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> If they want to fire someone for eating food,
> >>>> The charge is theft.
> >>>>
> >>> The problem is that if someone is going to be thrown away, then the
> >>> owner has abandoned it and *by defntion&* taking it cannot
> >>> logically be "theft".
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> this seems like it
> >>>>> might make a good Victor Hugo novel, they aren't going to have a
> >>>>> workplace that is very positive for employees. And this won't get
> >>>>> the employees looking for ways to improve service or cut costs or
> >>>>> both. So I think it's a big mistake. But it's within the rights of
> >>>>> the employer absent a contact stating otherwise.
> >>>> Exactly. Usually this particular reason is used to get rid of someone that
> >>>> they want to be rid of, but can't find another way.
> >>>>
> >>> So you are essentially admitting that companies end up firing the
> >>> people they need to fire, there's just an additional cost and
> >>> effort, more involvement by the courts.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Which is why I am surprised by the secretary case. In the UK, employers
> >>>> have to treat everyone the same. You can't decide to sack someone for
> >>>> eating the left over food from a meeting, if it is "custom and practice" for
> >>>> that to happen. IME it is the norm for this to happen.
> >>>>
> >>> My point is that "at will" just means that the employer can fire
> >>> you if the employer doesn't want to employ you anymore. That lowers
> >>> the cost to employing people and makes it more efficient. The
> >>> problem is that people might worry about being fired easily,
> >>> although it might also make employers and employees have a better
> >>> and more open and honest relationship than exists when the entire
> >>> thing is based on taking each other to court all the time.
> >> What a bunch of horse puckey. If people are constantly worried about being
> >> fired for some ridiculous trivia, they are not going to have a "more open
> >> and honest" relationship with their employer.
> >>
> > Why would they have to worry about that if they had an honest and
> > open relationship with their employer?
> >
> It's neither honest nor open if the boss can fire you on a whim,
>
You can also quit on a whim. It kind of evens out.


> which
> is what I'd say it was in this case. It's dictatorial and random. I've
>
This comes down to whether or not you are owed a job by your
employer. If you have a contract, that contract should largely be
enforced. If you were hired "at will", then you can be let go "at
will".



> seen it happen in restaurants, where the boss decides he wants to change
> the team and they are fired on the spot. It doesn't do wonders for
> morale for those remaining, I can tell you. They leave at the first
> opportunity, figuring it's better to control your departure than have it
> drop out of the blue.
>
So firing people on a whim isn't sensible business policy? The fact
that you can do that doesn't mean you should.



--
"Gonna take a sedimental journey", what Old Man River actually
said.
From: Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) on


Donna Evleth wrote:
>
> > From: "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)"
> > <tribuyltinafpant(a)yahoo.co.uk>
> > Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave to
> > those who come after us.
> > Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe,alt.activism.death-penalty
> > Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 12:09:55 +0000
> > Subject: Re: Dutch McDo's 'wrong' to fire worker over cheese slice...
> >
> >
> >
> > Donna Evleth wrote:
> >>
> >>> From: "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)"
> >>> <tribuyltinafpant(a)yahoo.co.uk>
> >>> Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave to
> >>> those who come after us.
> >>> Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe,alt.activism.death-penalty
> >>> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:17:26 +0000
> >>> Subject: Re: Dutch McDo's 'wrong' to fire worker over cheese slice...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Donna Evleth wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> From: "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)"
> >>>>> <tribuyltinafpant(a)yahoo.co.uk>
> >>>>> Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave
> >>>>> to
> >>>>> those who come after us.
> >>>>> Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe,alt.activism.death-penalty
> >>>>> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:44:01 +0000
> >>>>> Subject: Re: Dutch McDo's 'wrong' to fire worker over cheese slice...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "tim...." wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "Gregory Morrow" <rrrrrrrrrorrr(a)rrrnrjj.fi> wrote in message
> >>>>>> news:AJqdnURCYeG8uP3WnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com...
> >>>>>>> Earl Evleth wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 27/01/10 12:19, in article
> >>>>>>>> DsCdnWI0k5Crgv3WnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d(a)earthlink.com, "Gregory Morrow"
> >>>>>>>> <rrrrrrrrrorrr(a)rrrnrjj.fi> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> But the court said in its written judgement: "The dismissal was too
> >>>>>>>>> severe a measure. It is just a slice of cheese," reports AFP news
> >>>>>>>>> agency.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> A reprimand was more in order.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Drastic treatment of workers is a hallmark of modern,
> >>>>>>>> profits-are-everything Capitalism. Basically
> >>>>>>>> terrorize the workers.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> To repeat, Capitalism has no social goals, it lacks
> >>>>>>>> human empathy. It ranks with Fascism in that regard.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This kerfuffle is something I'd expect in the US, not in the EU where
> >>>>>>> worker - protection laws are stronger...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I wonder if this Dutch McDo's worker belonged to a union...???
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> When you have courts that enforce employment rights properly,
> >>>>>> individually,
> >>>>>> you don't need to belong to a union.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> What is in the contract? If there are rules for firing, then those
> >>>>> rules must be followed. If the work is at will, then the employer
> >>>>> should be able to fire the worker for any reason or no reason at
> >>>>> all. Regarding unions, they are a form of collusion which
> >>>>> interferes with the market. This is no different from any sort of
> >>>>> monopoly and should be limited.
> >>>>
> >>>> Kook alert.
> >>>>
> >>> Have you repeatedly refuted this comment? No. The comment is also
> >>> obviously true, unions are often monopolies. Consider the United
> >>> Auto Workers. Not only are they a monopoly against a single
> >>> company, they are a monopoly against most of an industry in a large
> >>> country. This allows the extortion I was talking about.
> >>>
> >>> Consider that the ploy unions used to raise their wages was to
> >>> strike *one* company in the industry. They told that company, and
> >>> not the others, that if it didn't cave in and give them the money
> >>> they wanted, they would strike it and only it until it was
> >>> destroyed. They wouldn't strike the other companies in the
> >>> industry, they'd let them continue to produce at the lower wage
> >>> rates. Who could withstand that? Now GM is bankrupt.
> >>
> >> There are a few other unions besides the Auto Workers. Are you claiming
> >> that this one example is the norm for all?
> >>
> > There is usually one main union in an industry. Or even across wide
> > swaths of the economy, the AFL-CIO.
> >
> >
> >
> >> BTW, the auto industry in Detroit had a few other problems besides the
> >> union.
> >>
> > Sure, but the cost of labour, including the many gold plated
> > benefits demanded, created a situation where, for example, small
> > low profit margin cars could not be built in the US. This helped to
> > push American car makers towards large trucks and SUVs, where
> > margins could pay for the benefits and high wages. Then the gas
> > prices went up.
>
> I seem to remember that one of the reasons American auto makers built large
> trucks and SUVs was because that was what the buyers wanted. When they
> tried smaller models, they did not sell well enough. This had nothing to do
> with cost of labour, it was market forces.
>
Wrong. Small cars have always sold. But they have lower margins and
Americans car makers couldn't compete.




--
"Gonna take a sedimental journey", what Old Man River actually
said.
From: Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) on


Donna Evleth wrote:
>
> > From: "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)"
> > <tribuyltinafpant(a)yahoo.co.uk>
> > Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave to
> > those who come after us.
> > Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe,alt.activism.death-penalty
> > Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 12:16:41 +0000
> > Subject: Re: Dutch McDo's 'wrong' to fire worker over cheese slice...
> >
> >
> >
> > Donna Evleth wrote:
> >>
> >>> From: "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)"
> >>> <tribuyltinafpant(a)yahoo.co.uk>
> >>> Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave to
> >>> those who come after us.
> >>> Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe,alt.activism.death-penalty
> >>> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:11:00 +0000
> >>> Subject: Re: Dutch McDo's 'wrong' to fire worker over cheese slice...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Donna Evleth wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> From: "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)"
> >>>>> <tribuyltinafpant(a)yahoo.co.uk>
> >>>>> Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave
> >>>>> to
> >>>>> those who come after us.
> >>>>> Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe,alt.activism.death-penalty
> >>>>> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 14:10:58 +0000
> >>>>> Subject: Re: Dutch McDo's 'wrong' to fire worker over cheese slice...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "tim...." wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)"
> >>>>>> <tribuyltinafpant(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>>>>> news:4B603511.C9863FF9(a)yahoo.co.uk...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "tim...." wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Gregory Morrow" <rrrrrrrrrorrr(a)rrrnrjj.fi> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>> news:AJqdnURCYeG8uP3WnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com...
> >>>>>>>>> Earl Evleth wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 27/01/10 12:19, in article
> >>>>>>>>>> DsCdnWI0k5Crgv3WnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d(a)earthlink.com, "Gregory Morrow"
> >>>>>>>>>> <rrrrrrrrrorrr(a)rrrnrjj.fi> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> But the court said in its written judgement: "The dismissal was too
> >>>>>>>>>>> severe a measure. It is just a slice of cheese," reports AFP news
> >>>>>>>>>>> agency.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> A reprimand was more in order.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Drastic treatment of workers is a hallmark of modern,
> >>>>>>>>>> profits-are-everything Capitalism. Basically
> >>>>>>>>>> terrorize the workers.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> To repeat, Capitalism has no social goals, it lacks
> >>>>>>>>>> human empathy. It ranks with Fascism in that regard.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> This kerfuffle is something I'd expect in the US, not in the EU where
> >>>>>>>>> worker - protection laws are stronger...
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I wonder if this Dutch McDo's worker belonged to a union...???
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> When you have courts that enforce employment rights properly,
> >>>>>>>> individually,
> >>>>>>>> you don't need to belong to a union.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> What is in the contract?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The contract will be based upon the national law.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> There may or may not be a form employment contract. Under the
> >>>>> freedom to contract doctrine, generally people can define their
> >>>>> contracts as they see fit.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> If there are rules for firing, then those
> >>>>>>> rules must be followed.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The problem is that those rules will allow firing for an offence, the
> >>>>>> severity of which is subjective.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> That sort of contract is just asking for the court to become
> >>>>> involved. The problem with "firing" is that the person goes to get
> >>>>> another job and they have to explain that they were "fired". If
> >>>>> they were "laid off" or something like that, that would be
> >>>>> different. So "firing" is beyond just at will employment.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> It is common for managers to over rate the
> >>>>>> severity of any particular offence for their own purposes. Thus the
> >>>>>> courts
> >>>>>> are there to reverse the decision if the manager gets it wrong.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> The problem is that the employer should have the right to lay off
> >>>>> employees as he sees fit within whatever rules the contract
> >>>>> defines. Generally I would side with the employer on this because
> >>>>> no one should be forced to continue to employ someone against their
> >>>>> will.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> If the work is at will, then the employer
> >>>>>>> should be able to fire the worker for any reason or no reason at
> >>>>>>> all.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Such contracts are completely banned in most European countries - even in
> >>>>>> the UK which has one of the most lax set of employment rights.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> The default situation should be that the employer can let people go
> >>>>> for any reason or no reason. Anything else is ridiculous:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment
> >>>>> #begin quote
> >>>>> At-will employment is a doctrine of American law that defines an
> >>>>> employment relationship in which either party can break the
> >>>>> relationship with no liability, provided there was no express
> >>>>> contract for a definite term governing the employment relationship
> >>>>> and that the employer does not belong to a collective bargain
> >>>>> (i.e., has not recognized a union). Under this legal doctrine:
> >>>>> � any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is
> >>>>> free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no
> >>>>> cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or
> >>>>> otherwise cease work.[1]
> >>>>> #end quote
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> Regarding unions, they are a form of collusion which
> >>>>>>> interferes with the market. This is no different from any sort of
> >>>>>>> monopoly and should be limited.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It is (limited).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Unions use their monopoly powers to extract wages from employers.
> >>>>> This is anti-competitive, no different to that situation that
> >>>>> Liberals complain about, the company with the monopoly.
> >>>>
> >>>> I thought the employers and the unions bargained, to come up with contracts
> >>>> that both sides could live with.
> >>>>
> >>> Unions are monopolies. I would replace the term "bargain" with
> >>> "extortion".
> >>
> >> Kook alert. This is a rant. Not rational.
> >>
> > What are you taking issue with?
> >
> > 1) Unions are often monopolies in an industry or even across
> > several or many industries.
> >
> > 2) When such a monopoly exists, the union can have the power to
> > require compliance from the company, I've explained this in detail
> > in others posts.
> >
> > 3) If you demand something and the other side has no choice, that
> > isn't a bargain.
> >
> > 4) Whether you think it goes to the point of being "extortion", I
> > think that's worth discussing.
> >
> > 5) So what is "Kook Alerted"?
>
> Your use of the word extortion. This can occur on the side of the employer
> as well.
>
Is the word "kooky" or not? You are now saying that it can occur on
the side of the employer.



> Some employers like to use illegal immigrant labor because it is
> cheap. The employer demands certain working conditions, sometimes fatiguing
> and/or dangerous, the illegal immigrant employee has no choice but to comply
> if he or she wants to go on working.
>
Or see "Grapes of Wrath". I didn't deny this by not bringing it up
out of the blue.



> Employers have been hiring illegal
> immigrants and imposing substandard working conditions for decades.
> Traditionally, the immigrant, if caught, is deported to where he came from,
> little or nothing happens to the employer, who will then turn around and
> hire other illegals. This certainly responds to your point 3 above.
>
It doesn't change what I said from being true to not being true.



--
"Gonna take a sedimental journey", what Old Man River actually
said.
From: Michael on
Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) wrote:
>
> So firing people on a whim isn't sensible business policy?
Is this rhetorical?

>The fact that you can do that doesn't mean you should.

Totally agree there.

M
http://cannes-or-bust.com/


>