RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


mnottertail -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/10/2011 9:09:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Like Greece?


Lessee, Ireland and now Greece, keep running countries thru the wringer you will finally get one anecdote that you can hold out as an example synecdoche. Joe the Plumber lives!!!

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4da90494-35f0-11df-aa43-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1aOagaLTr

It only takes a few rotten apples. Especially when they make the whole thing go away by being shits on the thread.

Shame on you, Rich.





TheHeretic -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/10/2011 9:23:01 AM)

Pick your socialist paradise, Ron. I just grabbed Greece because it is topping the charts at the moment.

Don't play stupid. It doesn't become someone of your stature.




SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/10/2011 9:28:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Like Greece?

Before I answer your question, it is fair that you answer mine :)




xssve -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/10/2011 9:29:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Pick your socialist paradise, Ron. I just grabbed Greece because it is topping the charts at the moment.

Don't play stupid. It doesn't become someone of your stature.
How about Sweden?




mnottertail -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/10/2011 9:35:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Pick your socialist paradise, Ron. I just grabbed Greece because it is topping the charts at the moment.

Don't play stupid. It doesn't become someone of your stature.



OK, I will let you play stupid since you excel. I pick Norway. Since Swedens been mentioned, lets do the trifecta and put Denmark in there as well.

Did you pick a republican or democratic paradise, Rich? I didn't see that.




ModTwentyOne -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/10/2011 9:41:53 AM)

Let's get back on topic please. The topic is NOT the state of affairs in Ireland, the economy of European countries, or hot women in the workplace.





TheHeretic -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/10/2011 10:28:33 AM)

So, Ron, got a thought on whether increased regulation and potential liabilities in the hiring process is a productive, or counterproductive, way to encourage small business to hire?





thompsonx -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/10/2011 10:32:15 AM)

quote:

hot women in the workplace.


It may not be on topic but it is always a topic worth consideration




mnottertail -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/10/2011 10:40:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

So, Ron, got a thought on whether increased regulation and potential liabilities in the hiring process is a productive, or counterproductive, way to encourage small business to hire?




Yes, I do. Unfortunately, it is not the topic, and we have been told to stay on it.




thompsonx -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/10/2011 10:48:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

So, Ron, got a thought on whether increased regulation and potential liabilities in the hiring process is a productive, or counterproductive, way to encourage small business to hire?

Which regulations are you against?
The one that requires the empoyee to be in the country legally?
The one that requires fire extinguishers in the building?
Tahe one that requires a bathroom for the employees?
The one that requires a fire alarm?
The one that requires hand rails on stairways?








DomKen -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/10/2011 10:51:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Like Greece?

More like Sweden, Denmark and Norway.




xssve -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/10/2011 10:51:43 AM)

Oh those pesky regs.




xssve -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/10/2011 11:02:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

So, Ron, got a thought on whether increased regulation and potential liabilities in the hiring process is a productive, or counterproductive, way to encourage small business to hire?
How small? The proposed law only applies to companies with 15 or more employees.

Lot's of people won't work outside their field because there is a also a stigma attached to that, i.e., not working in the actual field as the job you're applying for, i.e., if you take a job as groundskeeper, Guess what?

You're a fucking groundskeeper! What the hell are you doing applying for a bookkeeping job?

You should be asking why we can't seem to keep people employed in the occupations they're trained for and experienced at, so that we need another fucking law about it.




thompsonx -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/10/2011 11:18:49 AM)

quote:

Congressman Hank Johnson, the same guy who thought more Marines on Guam would cause the island to tip over, and sink.


Why do you post an april fools day metaphorical parody as reality?

April 1, 2010 12:39 PM
Hank Johnson Worries Guam Could "Capsize" After Marine Buildup
Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) is raising some eyebrows with a comment he made about the U.S. territory of Guam during a House Armed Services Committee hearing last Thursday.


In a discussion regarding a planned military buildup on the Pacific island, Johnson expressed some concerns about the plans to Adm. Robert Willard, head of the U.S. Pacific fleet.


"My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize," Johnson said. Willard paused and replied, "We don't anticipate that."


Online pundits have wasted no time lampooning the congressman for his remarks.


"Presumably, when you're the head guy of a major fleet for a big-time navy, you've got plenty of other ways of filling your time other than reassuring congressmen on whether miscellaneous land masses are likely to tip over and sink," Mark Steyn wrote at the National Review Online. "But it's business as usual in Congress."


The blog Left Coast Rebel said, "Call it a new low, a new 'tipping point' - even in the halls of Congress, if you will."


According to the Hill, a spokesman for Johnson responded to the incident by saying the congressman is concerned the influx of military personnel will overwhelm the island's infrastructure and ecosystem.


If Johnson's remarks were meant figuratively, he had a legitimate point.


The United States plans to move thousands of Marines and their families, about 8,000 people in all, to the small island of Guam, which has a current population of about 180,000. To prepare for the military buildup, the government is constructing new facilities on the island like an additional Marine base and a new airfield.

At the peak of construction, Guam's population would increase by 79,000 people, or about 45 percent, the Washington Post reported. The Environmental Protection Agency has reportedly said the military buildup could trigger island-wide water shortages and overload sewage systems and other public utilities.

Update 6:30 p.m. ET: Johnson released a statement on Thursday saying he was joking, according to CNN.

"The subtle humor of this obviously metaphorical reference to a ship capsizing illustrated my concern about the impact of the planned military buildup on this small tropical island," the statement said.





TheHeretic -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/10/2011 11:24:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx



Which regulations are you against?
The one that requires the empoyee to be in the country legally?
The one that requires fire extinguishers in the building?
Tahe one that requires a bathroom for the employees?
The one that requires a fire alarm?
The one that requires hand rails on stairways?







Back to the status quo, huh Thompson? How about the sorts of regulations discussed in the OP article, and relevant to the topic at hand?




TheHeretic -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/10/2011 11:26:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen



See the mod note Ken. If you want to discuss the suicide rates in Scandinavia, please start another thread






mnottertail -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/10/2011 11:27:08 AM)

There were no regulations, current or considered discussed in the OP.




Lucylastic -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/10/2011 11:29:47 AM)

Dont do as I do , do as I say
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
[8|]




Termyn8or -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/10/2011 11:35:48 AM)

FR - jumpthrough on page 3

People think differently than I obviously, and here is another way;

People have read me brag a bit about my last job. I guess it is still my job but I don't get forty hours - in a fucking month ! That's the industry and I will have to adapt. However I am not on the books. When my pay requirements for going on the books were discussed that was out the window. So being officially unemployed for the last few years I earned what, a quarter million or so ? But there is no paper trail. I got the balls to say that becasue there really is no paper trail.

However I have worked on the books and have left companies on good terms,. First of all off the books or not I can get any kind of reference I want from my current "employer", the one preceeding, and one from about 20 years ago or so. They will all say anything I tell them to say. The place now is a hole in the wall but has been in business for over three decades. The previous has been in business since 1976, and the other one has been in business for even longer and is a really high end place. Any of these references could drop me into my dream job easily. All of them together are a home run, a grand slam in fact. What's more if you got old phone books you can get references from all kinds of companies. Just look for the ones in the old book that are not in the new book. But don't junp into doing that, you need to do some research first.

But my dream job does not exist. Now let me clue you in on a couple of things. Nobody can prove you've been unemployed unless they get their hands on your UIC or welfare check and even that is not conclusive proof. The IRS cannot give out your information to any private entity, although that may be changing, it hasn't yet. That means you can lie.

Now here's the thing, I, if my dream job existed, could walk in there nd say I used to make a million bucks a year, but then they expect to see an Armani suit, and at least a Jag in the parking lot. But they cannot tell at all what you ever made, whether you told the IRS or not ! If the IRS tells them and you find out you just go to court and you collect $100,000 for EACH AND EVERY occurence of wrongful disclosure. Too much of that and you don't need their fucking job.

A side benefit of that is when you apply for credit. Print your own W2 or 1099s. Here is the catch now, and it's a big one - If you use this technique to get credit and default on whatever you were supposed to pay, that constitutes felony fraud. See, I know people who have done that, but they didn't default so there is no fraud, therefore no case. There was no wrongful gain. I've also known alot of people who made more side money than they did at a regular job.

So all this bias, like many of the inequities in the world seem to fall on the most honest and upstanding of our people. Damn shame. You know, if you know me I am totally fucking honest, but when it comes to business with the suits, they better be grateful I leave them their shirts. My people are one thing, but out there in the rat race all I care is if I can get caught, and some things are really fucking wrong and I won't do them. But these written down regs and bullshit, I have tried to care less about that bullshit but I just can't.

You been out of work for two years and got a half decent job prospect I can tell you how to get that fucking job. I can even supply references. I can also find out if any of your real refernces are talking bad about you and fix that. Not a problem.

If you're in need of some shit like this mail me. You can't put the details out here in public.

T^T




mnottertail -> RE: Unemployed seek protection against job bias (10/10/2011 11:36:24 AM)

Oh, I guess I could take back a little of what I said, though only in the most cavil of ways, the idea was that a lawsuit might be fashioned that would ostensibly what? make these exclusions fit under perhaps the age discriminations since by and large the older (and presumably highest paid) workers are disproportionaltely unemployed?





Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875