RE: "A note from your boss"

RE: "A note from your boss" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Archer -> RE: "A note from your boss" (2/24/2009 10:20:36 PM)
DomKen False that job ended if another company creates a new job to fill the demand that is a separate event. The demand may remain but the job has ended unless and until someone assumes the risk of starting a business to fill that need.

DomKen -> RE: "A note from your boss" (2/24/2009 10:21:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer DomKen False that job ended if another company creates a new job to fill the demand that is a separate event. The demand may remain but the job has ended unless and until someone assumes the risk of starting a business to fill that need. Now you're playing semantics.

Archer -> RE: "A note from your boss" (2/24/2009 10:22:15 PM)
You started it [:D]

DomKen -> RE: "A note from your boss" (2/24/2009 10:25:47 PM)
Where?

Archer -> RE: "A note from your boss" (2/24/2009 10:29:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stella41b I found the OP to be whiny, patronizing and unbelievably biased. I'm sorry, but I have very little sympathy for people who put all their effort into doing something and then whine about having to do it later on. Wow you talk about patronizing while dong just that? The letter was is an editorial commentary piece, but even if it were true the man isn't complaining about having to deal with the situation he started with. He is complaining about the changing of the rules/ taxes that simply make the cost benefit for him beyond what he is willing to accept. His Whineing is that after putting all that effort in over the years that now people want to take away the delayed benefits he worked for.

Archer -> RE: "A note from your boss" (2/24/2009 10:31:54 PM)
OK lets see here I made a simple est statement and you wanted to challange tit you did so with a semantic battle of "No. If demand exists for what that job produces then if the company goes away some one elsewhere will start filling that demand and voila the job lives. " Or are you going to claim that your argument wasn't a semantic difference?[;)]

DomKen -> RE: "A note from your boss" (2/24/2009 10:53:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer OK lets see here I made a simple est statement and you wanted to challange tit you did so with a semantic battle of "No. If demand exists for what that job produces then if the company goes away some one elsewhere will start filling that demand and voila the job lives. " Or are you going to claim that your argument wasn't a semantic difference?[;)] You claimed the job went away if the company closed. That's only true if you view the job as existing solely as part of the company. The fact is that jobs shift around as companies grow and fail. I don't see that as a semantic difference.

Archer -> RE: "A note from your boss" (2/24/2009 11:02:19 PM)
LOL man you're too much it is onyl semantic in my case. But I'll play along cause it's entertaining for the moment. The Job (singular and separate at XYZ Widgets) dies if XYZ Widgets dies. Another singular and separate job might or might not be created to replace that job it is not the same job, you can't directly transfer into it from XYZ Widgets to ABC Widgets, you would have to apply for the new job interview for it etc. It's not a semantic difference it is an entirly different job, at an entriely different company. And considering the international competition who says that ABC Widgets is even in the same hemisphere?

Archer -> RE: "A note from your boss" (2/24/2009 11:09:39 PM)
And with that I gotta get of to bed.

BoiJen -> RE: "A note from your boss" (2/25/2009 6:48:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Well lets see last 4 jobs including my current one have all been small businesses that started up from people who were working for a larger corporation and saved and later went out on their own. Like millions of job providing small businesses al over the US. 70% of all jobs come from small business. In some states that % is significantly higher. Small Business owners produce the vast majority of all new jobs, they are the job creation engine that keeps this economy moving or that when stalled leaves us adrift. BoiJen you might do well to look at the difference between the idea of the top 1% wealth holders and the top 1% of income they are two different segments of society. That top 1% of wealth holders hasn't paid income tax because they don't have income as defined by tax law they have capital gains. Wealth is what remains AFTER the person has paid the taxes on their income. The idea that the business owner lives off the worker's back is old class warfare from propaganda from decades back. The job belongs to the business not the worker. Don't believe me lets apply a simple test. If the worker dies, does the job go away?? No someone else gets hired to fill the job If the company dies, does the job go away?? Yes the worker is left unemployed. This letter is something that went out on the net before the election last year. It is certainly a small version of Atlas Shrugged boiled down to a single letter. You can argue that that bastard got rich off someone's back but to do so ignores the years of sacrifice the man put in making nothing and reinvesting every dime to make the business pay off later. To paint that small business owner with the broad brush of those evil rich people ignores the fact that he has created jobs that have supported people for years. That he has sacrificed along the way to make it grow. Archer, I've been in the position to run a small business but not be the owner of that small business. I got fucked. Hard. So did MsKitty funny enough, even after She promoted the hell out of the little fetish shop in Ferndale and we both got fucked. Why? Because the guy who owned the business didn't make what he wanted to make as fast as he wanted to make it. He didn't pay taxes on us at all because we were contractors. Letters, notes, or implications of what was written as the OP are simply the "I worked for it, I sacrificed for it and that means I'm not responsible to anyone or anything for it." When that's not the case. It's an implication that in hard economic times that there is no social or economic responsibility to anyone else other than yourself, even though when there's plenty of money to go around for everyone. It implies that because good, honest, hard working individuals loose their jobs, because of no fault of their own, they should suffer and that society has no responsibility to these individuals in return for their sacrifices as laborers. That's simply not true. We all have a responsibility to society. In this case it's made itself known financially. These same people who worked and just lost their jobs and need unemployment benefits are what made the "Boss'" business successful. It IS his (gender neutral) responsibility to those same individuals and not to take it out on his employees. There is always a cost of running a business. Always. It changes as the economic need changes. And if he's that concerned then he gets to lobby for tax code not to change. Currently, most states in the US are "at will" employment states. If employers were to send around a letter such as the one in the OP, we'd also a drastic change there and employers would lose even more rights to employ who they wish. I mean seriously, in this economic climate, political pressure to protect the working individual as much as the unemployed individual looking for work, would far out weigh small business owners who feel their own entitlement to be jerks about it. And frankly, this approach isn't about "I worked for it, and I need you to respect that," it's about "I worked for it and I can do what I want and you have to deal with it," which puts us back in a unionized situation. I'd rather keep employers' rights than loose them. That means employers have to play the game and deal with taxes as they come. Just as employees have to play the game and pay their income taxes and deal with state income tax increases as federal income taxes decrease. Let's not get into the blatant theft that is property taxes, that every individual has to pay on their homes and businesses. It's the way the system works. If, as a business owner, someone doesn't want to deal with these possibilities, they shouldn't go into owning a business. Respectfully, MsKitty's boi

Archer -> RE: "A note from your boss" (2/25/2009 8:32:20 AM)
A company's purpose is not job creation, nobody starts a business with the idea that hey I can create X number of jobs if I start this business. They start with the idea that hey I can make $ if I open a business and in the meantime I'll create some jobs that people need as a side benefit. The problem comes for me when anyone switches those priorities. If the owner doesn't make enough money to feel it is worth their time they have every right to close shop. Just as every employee has the right to quit or move to another company if they feel the job doesn't pay enough for the work it requires. The position in the article/letter is that after the tax increase the payoff to the owner is no longer enough to motivate them to continue operating the business. Nobody the government/ the employees/you me tom dick or harry can tell the man "You have to remain open even if the company isn't paying you enough to be worth the effort/ investment you made."

Coldwarrior57 -> RE: "A note from your boss" (2/25/2009 8:45:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hizgeorgiapeach It's ironic. A few years ago, seeing this would have pissed me clear the fuck off. Now, it's a completely different matter. I run my own business - one which, due to the political and tax situation in this country, I honestly hope never gets big enough to start employing anyone other than myself. The employment taxes, unemployment insurance taxes, state, city, county, and federal income taxes and use taxes, etc ad nauseum would bancrupt me in a heartbeat and put me right back out of business. ROFLMAO! its funny how when the shoe is on the other foot it feels different isnt it? I have my own business too,I work 24/7 , eat sleep n dream this business, I have been saying for a long time, cut fica in half or 75 %, kill the cap gains tax , let people risk and create their own business and hire people, instead of BORROWING money to put a tit in some ones mouth ( Not that there is anything wrong with a tit in the mouth, at least not at the right time.) Good luck . I hope you are not considered one of the RICH that Team barry is going to soak for his spent and tax change.

philosophy -> RE: "A note from your boss" (2/25/2009 8:46:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 The economy is supposed to serve society. Not the other way around. Bullshit. Explain your meaning. Firm ....ok, that's an interesting point, i'll take it. We first have to define our terms, Society and Economy. Basically it all comes down to the definitions. Now, i'll give my definitions, but chances are we will disagree about them........ Society. Group noun for a lot of individuals living under a shared legal and civil construct. Economy. A word describing what all those individuals previously defined as 'society' get up to that involves money. So, which one has primacy? Society exists regardless of how well the economy does. Basically those individuals don't go away. Economy is contingent on those individuals that make up society. Therefore, if we want both of these concepts healthy, we ought to start with society. Arguably, as long as we get our societal ducks in a row then a healthy economy ought to follow. The reverse doesn't necessarily follow. A healthy and strong economy does not necessarily mean a healthy and strong society. Caveat. If ones interest is not focussed on society but rather the majority of the individuals that make it up, then it is possible to put the economy first. So long as you're happy to see a minority of individuals lose out. A strong economy will benefit some individuals more than others. So long as the winners have no moral, ethical or legal obligation to the losers then it is possible to argue the primacy of economy.

Termyn8or -> RE: "A note from your boss" (2/25/2009 8:52:04 AM)
fr Well maybe I am lucky. I am well networked in my field and haven't looked in a newspaper for a job in probably at least twenty years. Perhaps I am treated better than the other employees because I can do things that noone else can, I haven't really looked into it. I guess in the past I did have some bad bosses, but those jobs were short lived. I guess part of it is if you want a good boss you have to be a good employee, but that is not foolproof. Some people are just plain old greedy. However I do see people on their cellphones, having visitors stop by and things like that. I avoid those things like the plague. I have seen my boss loan out money, bail people out of jail and all sorts of things, I also avoid that. All I want is what I earned. The extent of owing between him and I is limited to what we call the floating five. They cash my checks and sometimes, because it is a retail establishment as well, five dollar bills are important. So are singles, so rounded up or down a few bucks doesn't bother me, I'll get it back next time, or may wind up ahead next time. But I never ask to borrow money and hope to never have to. My strengths and weaknesses were discussed at the gitgo. For example don't ask me to drive, I have a terrible sense of direction. I could leave a bar seven miles from home and get a ticket twenty miles from home. Also I can't see. I need alot of light and when I walk in the back door of the shop there is a time it takes for my eyes to adjust. But on the other hand, I usually know what we have and what we don't and whether I can complete a job right away, and I ask if he wants me to just do it or get an estimate OKed first. Every day requires a slight adjustment. I also know that the boss cashed in a life insurance policy a while back to meet expenses. It was the slow season but my pay was intact. I was not asked to wait for my pay at this place. So as usual there are at least two sides to everything. A couple years ago a coworker asked me why he got reamed when he was late but I could stroll in the door when I damn well please. I told him straight out that I set it up that way in the beginning. The very first day, he said what time, I said noonish. Later he asks, so all you want is like six hours a day, to which I replied that's all I need. That's because I am normally highly productive. It works both ways. People don't think they know when you waste time in the head, surfing the web, on a personal call or checking your email. Usually they know, and that makes a difference. Some jobs you can do that, usually the type of jobs where you re paid just to be there at the ready, almost like on call. Well then who cares ? But when your time is billed out at around a hundred bucks an hour there is no time for such things. A buddy of mine stopped by the other day, wants to talk about those water convertors that allow you to run your car off the hydrogen. I've looked into them and they actually will work, but are a big pain in the ass. But my response to him was "This is what I have a house for". I hope I made it clear, I do NOT appreciate visits at work. Normally even where I work is kept secret, pretty much for that reason. He caught wind of it though and through whatever means, found the place. Ironically he is a business owner, and friend or no friend, he is not a good boss. If he persists in visiting me at work, I will go visit his employees when they are supposed to be working. Perhaps it's my attitude and extreme work ethic that gets me what some might see as preferential treatment, so maybe my point of view is different. I also know something most people seem not to - to not work hard, to work smart. In the last month I have saved the company many thousands of dollars doing just that, avoiding pitfalls like insidious problems that are not easily detected. Sometimes I am asked "So what's up with this thing ?", sometimes my reply is something like "Well it looks like this, but I am making sure, you know, fool me once ?". That and the fact that if someone stands behind me while I am at the computer, they will not see my private email, or CM or whatever, they are most likely to see an eighteen hundred page technical manual on the screen. In other words I don't fuck around. So that's my assertion at this time. Good bosses are not just born, they are made. I know a guy who had a pretty good boss, but he screwed it up. His packege included a free vehicle to drive, home and everything. He worked for a combination boneyard, car sales and rent a wreck. The problem with him is that he's a player, and just one too many times he had to call the boss for a tow because he ran out of gas in a drug neighborhood. I told him the first time he better stop that. Well like many people who avoid listening to good advice, that job is gone for him. And, last but not least I was thinking of starting a business a couple of years ago. After a few people let me down, like going to make some quicker money rather than fixing my car so I could get to work, I was on the phone with my buddy Jack and said I dunno if this is going to happen, I don't have what it takes to be boss. He said I shouldn't put myself down that way, that I would probably be an excellent boss. Then I replied that I wasn't putting myself down, what I meant was that I lack people that will do what the fuck I say. So it works both ways. I guess it's like any other relationship, you respond to and meet their needs they will reciprocate. If they don't it is time to move on. T

aravain -> RE: "A note from your boss" (2/25/2009 9:17:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Perhaps it's my attitude and extreme work ethic that gets me what some might see as preferential treatment, so maybe my point of view is different. I also know something most people seem not to - to not work hard, to work smart. In the last month I have saved the company many thousands of dollars doing just that, avoiding pitfalls like insidious problems that are not easily detected. These were the only reasons he didn't fire ME and fired people who had been in my position longer than I was (by YEARS in two cases) Well, that and other people who depended on me working to do their job saying that if I was one of the people included in the cutback they would quit. But I'm thoroughly convinced that they said that BECAUSE of those reasons. I was the only one of the six of us at that time who had any sort of work ethic, and he fired FOUR of the six because he could do our job 'so easy' because it didn't take 'any time' to do. Of course, when he was on in the job not only were things very sloppily done, but they weren't even up to health standards. Once I resigned I reported him to some anonymous police tip thing and even gave them times that I knew HE would be working, and not someone he was paying directly for that job.

FullCircle -> RE: "A note from your boss" (2/25/2009 9:59:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer The letter was is an editorial commentary piece, but even if it were true the man isn't complaining about having to deal with the situation he started with. He is complaining about the changing of the rules/ taxes that simply make the cost benefit for him beyond what he is willing to accept. His Whineing is that after putting all that effort in over the years that now people want to take away the delayed benefits he worked for. So this letter is a piece of fiction then? So every employee is welcome to write a piece of fiction demonstrating how they work 12 hour days? What exactly is the point of people writing fiction in this situation? I'd give it more credence if some employer stepped into the limelight and admitted to writing it; we could then all look at their annual earnings to see if they are talking out of their arse. As matters stand it’s a piece of fiction written in a dark corner for god knows what political motivation. Source anonymous = any point you'd like to make today. My advice for the author is to write the same thing but with actual figures for consideration. Didn't realise until now corporations were doing us a favour by employing us, I thought they employed us because we had skills they needed. The new corporate strategy based on morality; I like that very funny as they say.

Truthiness -> RE: "A note from your boss" (2/25/2009 10:09:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FullCircle Didn't realise until now corporations were doing us a favour by employing us, I thought they employed us because we had skills they needed. And you seek employment with them because they have money you need. It works both ways, you and the company are doing each other a favor for mutual gain.

FullCircle -> RE: "A note from your boss" (2/25/2009 10:20:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Truthiness And you seek employment with them because they have money you need. It works both ways, you and the company are doing each other a favor for mutual gain. I could work elsewhere with less job satisfaction but for more money. Given a choice of two employees with equal ability the employer would choose the cheaper option, there is no charity involved. Equal mutual gain would be a shares option in the company.

Truthiness -> RE: "A note from your boss" (2/25/2009 10:50:39 AM)
Nor did I say there was charity involved, on either part. Employment is a contract between two entities, each of which has something the other needs, and exchanges for that need. Don't add words to what I said to change the point either btw. You know good and well I didn't say "equal mutual gain". That's a seperate argument in itself.

xBullx -> RE: "A note from your boss" (2/25/2009 11:20:19 AM)
A long time ago I was told something about employees that I still bear in mind to this day... You hire someone to help solve your problems... So long as they are doing that you maintain the working relationship.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875