0
   

Speaking of propaganda...

 
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2008 10:38 am
Wow, that's a hot, steaming pile of bullshit right there. I'm amazed you didn't gag on your own stink Setanta.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2008 10:39 am
Uh-huh . . . how much of your income went to private charitable organizations to support the homeless and hungry, big mouth?

As for tolerating stench, you've been around here for years, i've become inured.
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2008 10:42 am
Fight!! Fight!!
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2008 10:42 am
My personal donations of time and money are none of your business, but I probably do more for the homeless and the hungry then 90% of the bleeding hearts on this forum. So, take your your bullshit and peddle it elsewhere. Maybe TKO will buy it, he seems to be in the bullshit peddling business as well.
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2008 10:43 am
Setanta wrote:
What is so pathetic about conservative objections on the subject of whether or not it is best for the government to help the needy, or for private individuals to do so, is that conservatives don't do it. Read any number of posts here; conservatives consistently blame people for their needs, and express no desire to help, and protest that it is not their place to help those who the claim will not help themselves.

Basically, conservatives don't give a rat's ass about anyone else, but attempt to cloak their meanness in arguments about government responsibility versus personal responsibility. They're grasping cheapskates, and wouldn't step out of their way to piss on you if you were dying of thirst.


I did like that bit, Set. We are not as different as you like to believe.
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2008 10:44 am
McGentrix wrote:
My personal donations of time and money are none of your business, but I probably do more for the homeless and the hungry then 90% of the bleeding hearts on this forum. So, take your your bullshit and peddle it elsewhere. Maybe TKO will buy it, he seems to be in the bullshit peddling business as well.


I am willing to wager that your contributions to charitable causes were less than a nickel, McGentrix.

Call it a gut feeling.
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2008 10:44 am
Not that I think less of you, it is just that I know your character.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2008 10:45 am
gustavratzenhofer wrote:
Not that I think less of you, it is just that I know your character.


Obviously you are not a good judge of character.
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2008 10:45 am
You are not one of my friends. Do we need more evidence?
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2008 10:46 am
Diest said...

Quote:
An employer does have a duty to their employees, and I'd love to hear anyone argue against that.


Tell me, what duty is that?
An employer is required to obey the labor laws, to provide a safe environment, and to pay what they said they would pay.

An employer is NOT obligated to provide day care for the employees kids, an employer is NOT obligated to provide healthcare (beyond workers comp),an employer is NOT obligated to provide any social services to their employees.

A company goes into business for one reason...to make a profit.
They dont go into business to provide social services to employees, they dont go into business because of some sense of moral duty, they go into business to make money, period.

If you dont like what the company is doing or not doing, dont work for them.
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2008 10:46 am
Sorry, dude. Cheap shot. You're not such a bad guy -- just misguided.
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2008 10:47 am
mysteryman wrote:
Diest said...

Quote:
An employer does have a duty to their employees, and I'd love to hear anyone argue against that.


Tell me, what duty is that?
An employer is required to obey the labor laws, to provide a safe environment, and to pay what they said they would pay.

An employer is NOT obligated to provide day care for the employees kids, an employer is NOT obligated to provide healthcare (beyond workers comp),an employer is NOT obligated to provide any social services to their employees.

A company goes into business for one reason...to make a profit.
They dont go into business to provide social services to employees, they dont go into business because of some sense of moral duty, they go into business to make money, period.

If you dont like what the company is doing or not doing, dont work for them.


Go kill a peasant, mysterman. Make yourself happy.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2008 11:38 am
MM is right. The business owner risks his own capital and accepts responsibility for the considerable risks of being in business. As a condition of his buisness license he is required to comply with certain regulations re zoning, safety, and community standards as well as pay requisite fees, taxes, and mountains of required paperwork. If he has employees and/or to meet certain contractual requirements he must participate in insurance programs such as FUTA, SUTA, FICA, workers compensation and general liability.

Employees are responsible for none of that. They agree to peform specified duties in return for a specified wage that may or may not include extra benefits. The employer may furnish tools and safety equipment or the employee can agree to furnish their own. The employer is obligated to the terms of the contract or agreement with the employee and is obligated to ensure that the employee is not exposed to unreasonable risk that the employee has not agreed to.

The employer is not obligated, morally, ethically, or legally, for anything more.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2008 11:40 am
mysteryman wrote:
Tell me, what duty is that?
An employer is required to obey the labor laws, to provide a safe environment, and to pay what they said they would pay.

An employer is NOT obligated to provide day care for the employees kids, an employer is NOT obligated to provide healthcare (beyond workers comp),an employer is NOT obligated to provide any social services to their employees.

A company goes into business for one reason...to make a profit.
They dont go into business to provide social services to employees, they dont go into business because of some sense of moral duty, they go into business to make money, period.

If you dont like what the company is doing or not doing, dont work for them.


That's innacurate and naive nearly to the point of hilarity.

What is the sole obligation of the government?
What are the sole obligations of parents?
What is the sole obligation of a school?
What is the sole obligation of a church?

I bet MM, if you did some research on the most desirable employers in the US, you'd find that they don't simply own up to the most most basic of expections.
I doubt very much that Google or Starbucks are considered top employers because they merely pony up a wage, obey labor laws, and make a safe environment.
No, these companies understand that happy employees make good, productive, long term, and committed workers.
I hear they also turn a profit.
*shock*

Heck, a friend of mine works at a local bike shop. His boss gives him a flexible health care plan--if he needs more money for, say, more dental work, he gets it. He bought him an i-pod, lends him the company vehicle for recreational purposes, and extends staff deals on products to people like me who should be paying full retail.
The owner takes a bit of a hit on his bottom line, but let me tell you, the morale in his shop is insanely high, employees want to do things for him because he does things for them. They are loyal, dedicated and don't need to be asked to put in some hours on a Sunday when the shop should be closed.
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2008 11:41 am
Another baby seal killer speaks.

(directed at foxfyre)
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2008 11:43 am
You're confusing what employers can and do agree to in order to attract and keep good employees, Candid and what employers are OBLIGATED to do. Some employers (and their employees) prefer to pay higher wages than provide a lot of benefits that employees may or may not need or want.

Perhaps there are some employers who provide benefits for their employees solely out of the goodness of their hearts. I've never worked for one, but I suppose there are some out there.
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2008 11:45 am
Ok, foxfyre, you exhibit traces of hope.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2008 11:55 am
candidone1 wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Tell me, what duty is that?
An employer is required to obey the labor laws, to provide a safe environment, and to pay what they said they would pay.

An employer is NOT obligated to provide day care for the employees kids, an employer is NOT obligated to provide healthcare (beyond workers comp),an employer is NOT obligated to provide any social services to their employees.

A company goes into business for one reason...to make a profit.
They dont go into business to provide social services to employees, they dont go into business because of some sense of moral duty, they go into business to make money, period.

If you dont like what the company is doing or not doing, dont work for them.


That's innacurate and naive nearly to the point of hilarity.

What is the sole obligation of the government?
What are the sole obligations of parents?
What is the sole obligation of a school?
What is the sole obligation of a church?

I bet MM, if you did some research on the most desirable employers in the US, you'd find that they don't simply own up to the most most basic of expections.
I doubt very much that Google or Starbucks are considered top employers because they merely pony up a wage, obey labor laws, and make a safe environment.
No, these companies understand that happy employees make good, productive, long term, and committed workers.
I hear they also turn a profit.
*shock*

Heck, a friend of mine works at a local bike shop. His boss gives him a flexible health care plan--if he needs more money for, say, more dental work, he gets it. He bought him an i-pod, lends him the company vehicle for recreational purposes, and extends staff deals on products to people like me who should be paying full retail.
The owner takes a bit of a hit on his bottom line, but let me tell you, the morale in his shop is insanely high, employees want to do things for him because he does things for them. They are loyal, dedicated and don't need to be asked to put in some hours on a Sunday when the shop should be closed.


Why would anyone be shocked by what you said.

Any dope can work flipping burgers, just ask Gus.

If an employer wants competent employees, it would behoove the employer to offer the employees benefits. I wouldn't take a job that did not offer certain benefits. That's me though. I am sure there are people that have to take what ever work they can and that means employers can take advantage of them.

I have no idea where this insane idea came from the "conservatives" only think the employer is right and that all poor people should be shown no compassion. That's a ridiculous notion and I am sure snopes would like to know about it.

The fact remains though that employers have a minimum set of requirments to meet. Anything beyond that is at the employers decision. However, I do not see many drug users/high school dropouts/teen mothers/etc offering jobs with excellent benefits... do you? Is that common in your guys neck of the woods?
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2008 11:56 am
Foxfyre wrote:

Perhaps there are some employers who provide benefits for their employees solely out of the goodness of their hearts. I've never worked for one, but I suppose there are some out there.


I think you're wrong to suggest that anyone in the business of business does anything "solely out of the goodness of their hearts". I think the tough love practices of a past generation have proven not only unproductive, but also unsuccessful in many respects--such as maintaining a positive work environment, creating lifelong employees, maximizing productivity and potential etc.

Providing health care is not an altruistic endeavor, nor is providing child care, or above competitive wages, or flex days, or vacation time, or anything along those lines.
Improving employer-employee relations through a more humanist approach has real and perceived benefits for both parties involved.
Again, examine the practices of the top employers in the US and you'll find a common thread--happy employees make productive employees which make increased profits.

But you are right....they don't have to do anything for their employees by law or some other moral imperative. They do it because it will, over the long term, be in the interests of the company to do so.
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2008 11:59 am
McGentrix wrote:
Any dope can work flipping burgers, just ask Gus.


I will verify your employment one more time, McGentrix. After this... you are on your own.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/15/2025 at 09:09:25