From: Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) on 29 Jan 2010 11:38 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 29 Jan 2010 11:43 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 29 Jan 2010 11:46 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 29 Jan 2010 11:48 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 29 Jan 2010 13:12
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/ > |