Common sense laws that you think should exist

[rivrrat]

Too late, I already run three businesses. I have never found that fairly appreciating my employees has caused problems for me. Instead I find that appreciated employees improve relations with customers and vendors alike, cause less turnover, and in fact do their jobs better than if they were treated like minimum wage morons who are not worthy of consideration.

We will simply have to disagree. I am willing to live more modestly for the benefit of those who help me succeed. I wish more would do the same.

Good for you. But why force others to do the same? Do you not think that employees are capable of determining their worth themselves? If they feel as though they're treated like morons not worthy of consideration, then they should seek employment elsewhere. Because if they tolerate such treatment indefinitely, then the treatment would seem to be well founded.

Personally, I prefer to leave it up to employees to determine how THEY think they should be treated and allow them to act and make decisions accordingly. But, maybe I have more consideration for the "morons" than the people who want to make those decisions for them and thus truly treat them as idiots.

 

[Jerry]

Why is that?

According to my avatar, Dave Ramsey, the number one reason for divorce in the United States is a problem with managing money. If the problems can be resolved then a happy marriage will likely ensue. This principal is akin to making every effort to cure the patient instead of killing her the moment she steps inside the ER.

 

[Jerry]

Solve the marriage/divorce problem by removing "marriage" from legal status (make it religious only) and require all partners (of any gender combination) to draw up a legally binding contract as one has to with a business partnership; with "outs" and "penalties" clearly described for each spouse as well as any children created/adopted by the partnership in order to be recognized by state/federal gov'ts (taxes) or by employers (insurance and benefits).

Law was not the cause of my divorce, so I can't relate to what ever you're claiming the root problem is.

 

[Summerwind]

Good for you. But why force others to do the same? Do you not think that employees are capable of determining their worth themselves? If they feel as though they're treated like morons not worthy of consideration, then they should seek employment elsewhere. Because if they tolerate such treatment indefinitely, then the treatment would seem to be well founded.

Personally, I prefer to leave it up to employees to determine how THEY think they should be treated and allow them to act and make decisions accordingly. But, maybe I have more consideration for the "morons" than the people who want to make those decisions for them and thus truly treat them as idiots.

Unfortunately employees are mostly subservient to employer's whims; hence unionization. What I'm suggesting is a way to accomplish a form of unionized consideration for employees without the union, its dues, or its other possible negatives.

 

[Summerwind]

Law was not the cause of my divorce, so I can't relate to what ever you're claiming the root problem is.

I was responding to a comment about the resolution of divorces by way of not having them as marriages, but instead clearly defined contracts. I am not suggesting law is a reason for divorce. If marriages became clearly defined contracts with the "outs" and the related consequences clearly defined, I think that would be preferrable to our current starry-eyed marriage leading to ugly divorce scenarios. If this course is ever taken, then "marriage" should become a religious option and only a contract should be recognized by the govt (or other entities) as reason for tax breaks, insurance dependents, and so on as partners are concerned. Obviously children would remain dependents even with no contract.

 

[DeeJayH]

Too late, I already run three businesses. I have never found that fairly appreciating my employees has caused problems for me. Instead I find that appreciated employees improve relations with customers and vendors alike, cause less turnover, and in fact do their jobs better than if they were treated like minimum wage morons who are not worthy of consideration.

We will simply have to disagree. I am willing to live more modestly for the benefit of those who help me succeed. I wish more would do the same.

sounds like you only 'bought' yourself a job than, which to me is not worth the effort of starting a business, much less 3

 

[RightinNYC]

Too late, I already run three businesses. I have never found that fairly appreciating my employees has caused problems for me. Instead I find that appreciated employees improve relations with customers and vendors alike, cause less turnover, and in fact do their jobs better than if they were treated like minimum wage morons who are not worthy of consideration.

We will simply have to disagree. I am willing to live more modestly for the benefit of those who help me succeed. I wish more would do the same.

I wish you the best in your business ventures. I sincerely hope that your businesses grow to 100 times their current size...so that I can apply to be your janitor and make $800k/year.

 

[Summerwind]

I wish you the best in your business ventures. I sincerely hope that your businesses grow to 100 times their current size...so that I can apply to be your janitor and make $800k/year.

Why are you and everyone else in this thread trying to suggest that I ever said janitors should get exorbitant wages? But if the CEO is getting $800K I don't see a problem with the janitor getting $10-15/hr instead of minimum wage.

 

[RightinNYC]

Why are you and everyone else in this thread trying to suggest that I ever said janitors should get exorbitant wages? But if the CEO is getting $800K I don't see a problem with the janitor getting $10-15/hr instead of minimum wage.

You said that no corporate official should be paid more than 20X the lowest paid employee. Using that logic, it stands to reason that if a CEO is earning 10m a year, the lowest paid employee should be getting 500k a year.

 

[Jerry]

Devoting an entire story, column, article, news cycle, or show segment to a politicians family in a negative light is hereby a violation of FCC decency standards and will meet a $100,000 fine per incident.

 

[Thorgasm]

Devoting an entire story, column, article, news cycle, or show segment to a politicians family in a negative light is hereby a violation of FCC decency standards and will meet a $100,000 fine per incident.

What it it is devoted to bebunking or speaking out against it?

 

[Jerry]

What it it is devoted to bebunking or speaking out against it?

Moderator's Warning:

This is an automated responce. Please do not reply.

:alert:alert:alert
Dear independent_thinker2002,

You have received a warning at Debate Politics Forums.

Reason:
-------
Violation of FCC decency standerds Article 12, section 56b.

A $100,000 fine has been automaticly added to your IRS tax debt.

I would appreciate if you would edit your post, but I will not take further action if you do not.
-------

Original Post:
;1057715959

What it it is devoted to bebunking or speaking out against it?

Warnings serve as a reminder to you of the FCC's rules, which you are expected to understand and follow.

All the best,
Your local Evil Conservative.

 

[Thorgasm]

Moderator's Warning:

This is an automated responce. Please do not reply.

:alert:alert:alert
Dear independent_thinker2002,

You have received a warning at Debate Politics Forums.

Reason:
-------
Violation of FCC decency standerds Article 12, section 56b.

A $100,000 fine has been automaticly added to your IRS tax debt.

I would appreciate if you would edit your post, but I will not take further action if you do not.
-------

Original Post:
;1057715959


Warnings serve as a reminder to you of the FCC's rules, which you are expected to understand and follow.

All the best,
Your local Evil Conservative.

Can a mod please delete my tourid remarks? :mrgreen:

(Good one, Jerry! That was funny. :2wave