Subj : Responsibilty To : GEORGE POPE From : JOE MACKEY Date : Sat Apr 16 2022 08:21:46 CP wrote -- > > Someone once said when hiring people it was often better to hire someone who had lots of jobs over someone who had a sheepskin and has no work experience. > > The one who had the jobs shows determination while the other hasn't. > > True -- but too many jobs makes it look like you aren't one to commit & they worry their losses in training will not be returned, as they'll get trained & flighty off elsewhere. I may not have made myself clear there. Its not someone who has only had a lot of different jobs, but who has done a variety of jobs and the skills that come along with those jobs, be it entry level or a CEO of a multinational company. As one goes from job to job (entry level moving upward) they learn new skills than someone with a newly printed sheepskin doesn't have. > (McDonalds, especially, has this problem, as McD's on > your CV is a guartanteed interview getter for something better) And McDonald's is generally an entry level (or stop gap or extra income) job, as most minimum wage jobs are. Minimum wage is just that, the minimum, and not intended to be used to support a family, etc. One does not start as a burger flipper and do that forever, or at least shouldn't. One flips burgers till something better comes along: team leader, assistant manager, manager, etc with increase in pay along the way if they stay in that job. And more ofte This would reflected in their work experience to a new employer. > One of our local schools (BCIT) is the same -- it's a guaranteed job when you grad their programs) I hope they don't guarantee permanent employment at that position. > I had to get it upon leaving the hospiotal & rehab, buyt I saw it as only a temporary safety net, not a permanment solution/way of life. Too many today use the safety net as a hammock. Then laugh at us folks for working while they sit back and are taken care of with our tax dollars. I believe those who are able to work should work and not get any welfare. And there are different skills people have who may have a disability. While someone may not be able to do manual labour, they can hold down a desk job. > Now, very dsadly, jobsare going ujnfilled because peoplewould rather sit at home on the Covid allowance than do real work! :( These are ADULTS!!! Same here. I was against sending everyone that Covid money. Some people, like myself, didn't need it, and there were people who did need it. Things like this should be based on need, not money tossed at people willy-nilly. But then we are talking about politicians who see throwing money at people as a means of being re-elected by some people. We used to joke here in WV that politicians brought votes by "a dollar and a swaller". Vote for me and I'll give a dollar and a drink each time you vote. > There was no real automation then; even now for some jobs, human labour is necessary (picking the billion dollar berry crops here, for one) And eventually automation will replace the berry pickers. When so many were calling for $15 an hour minimum wage, companies began to look at automation even more so with some FF places replacing counter people with machines. The initial cost is high but pays for itself over time. Now those were calling for the higher minimum wage are out of a job. > My dad wasforced to join a union, by law & wasn't happy about it. At one time I had to join a union and not happy. I was working part time for a large grocery chain (it was a stop gap job since nothing else available at the time). After 30 days one had to join the union. I was working in produce department and some fruit union. This company had a policy of never firing anyone. What they did was cut back ones hours for the ones they wanted to get rid of until their hours until they worked only enough time to cover their union dues. After a couple of months something better came along and I was gone. > Yup, that's been my view of it, too. But was the south part of the Union yet? > Oh, yes, I guess that included the southern parts of the LA Purchase, eh? Yep. The South, until 1861, had always been part of the union. The Louisiana Purchase in 1803 doubled the size of the country and all new states (and territories there in) became part of the union. There was a big debate over if the new states would be slave or free, for a balance of power. That is there could be not be more slave or free states but an equal number. Say you had three territories who wanted to join the union. One had to be free and the other slave. Thus the third territory that wanted to be admitted had to wait for a territory opposite it to come up. This was also based on geography, what the people wanted, etc. > & the Republican Party was created to then become for slavery (only because the Dems were antis, is how it looks to me.) 1964 cost the Dems a lot of votes for years to come.) Close, but you have it reversed. The Dem's were pro-slavery, the Republicans anti-slavery, at least joining the union at the beginning. And not anti-slavery per se, just no more slave states admitted. The Dem's controlled the South before the Civil War and the Republicans were the majority party in the north. After the war the Republicans controlled the South and it was the Republicans who passed the 13th amendment abolishing slavery, the 14th that gave citizenship to former slaves and the 15th that gave former slaves the right to vote. All opposed by the Democ This didn't set well with a lot of people, on either side. Some Southerns didn't like the idea of freed slaves being citizens and voting, and some northerners didn't like the idea of all these former slaves being equal citizens. This was mostly due to economics since freed slaves threw more people into the job ma It was the Democrats who opposed all this and passed Jim Crow laws of varying degrees. Segregation was common until the late 1960s in nearly all states to one degree or another. It may not have been at blatant as it was in the South. But those opposing integration were almost all Democrats. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 ending segregation was passed with barely a Democrat voting for it. It was begun by the Republicans and signed by Democrat Lyndon Johnson, not because he necessarily agreed with it, but for political motive since he thought it > > the market with more workers than there were paying jobs? > > There is that -- was that ever brought up explicitly in Congress or Senate then? Not that I am aware of. > I am happy our system defines fixed election times, so the public gets to re-evaluate all Same here. > but I don't like that there are people who merely vote against the incumbent with no clue how that might affect them or their neighbours. When it comes to voting too many people are lazy. They don't want to take the few minutes it takes to vote out of their "busy day" much less even learn who is running and their positions. When I vote (and only missed one election, school board when I first moved back here) I read what the person has done in the past, not just want they say they will do. Its easy for someone to say "vote for me and you'll have everything you want" but once in office make a lame attempt and say "Well, I tried, vote for me again". So many voters simply see a name they recognise and even if they may not like that person, vote for them again because the other guy may be worse. Elections are too often popularity contests. > We had to pass a lawmaking it ilegal Sadly, too often the case today. I would like to see people in a situation like that be charged with negligence. Joe --- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5 * Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 www.doccyber.org bbs.docsplace.org (1:135/392) .