O-Trap
Posts: 14,994
Feb 23, 2011 2:53pm
While you're in the future-telling mood, who wins the next Superbowl?Bigdogg;688864 wrote:I agree, and they will pay for it the next election.
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
Feb 23, 2011 2:53pm
Bigdogg;688864 wrote:I agree, and they will pay for it the next election.
Perhaps so. Maybe there are finally some people in office more concerned about accomplishing something than with whether it will put their job in jeopardy.
B
Bigdogg
Posts: 1,429
Feb 23, 2011 3:09pm
queencitybuckeye;688868 wrote:Perhaps so. Maybe there are finally some people in office more concerned about accomplishing something than with whether it will put their job in jeopardy.
You mean like the health care bill?
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Feb 23, 2011 4:15pm
Bigdogg does have a decent point there despite him being (IMO) wrong about the SB5 thing.
O-Trap
Posts: 14,994
Feb 23, 2011 4:19pm
That depends. A stipulation from QCB's post was that what was done would be an "accomplishmen," so the entire point hinges on whether or not you think that the HCR Bill was such.I Wear Pants;688968 wrote:Bigdogg does have a decent point there despite him being (IMO) wrong about the SB5 thing.
Not wrong on its face, by any stretch, and actually parallels better than some would like to admit. The projected outcome would be the crux of the difference, probably.
Writerbuckeye
Posts: 4,745
Feb 23, 2011 4:20pm
He'd have a point if the health care bill actually reformed health care and saved money. It does neither.
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
Feb 23, 2011 4:20pm
Bigdogg;688888 wrote:You mean like the health care bill?
In terms of motives, perhaps so. In terms of accomplishing anything, also the same. Neither is currently the law.
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Feb 23, 2011 4:22pm
My point was that depending on who you talk to the HCR could be anything from the greatest bill ever to a bill spawned from Satan himself. This is similar to SB5. That's all I was trying to say.
O-Trap
Posts: 14,994
Feb 23, 2011 4:23pm
I Wear Pants;688977 wrote:My point was that depending on who you talk to the HCR could be anything from the greatest bill ever to a bill spawned from Satan himself. This is similar to SB5. That's all I was trying to say.
I agree, then.
Writerbuckeye
Posts: 4,745
Feb 23, 2011 4:23pm
As for that USA Today "poll" -- I'm always suspicious of "polls" which don't give you details of how they were conducted and WHO answered the question. Saying it was a poll of 1,000 adults says NOTHING. If you pick 1,000 people from New York City, you'll get a very different result than people from Columbus. I give USA Today a solid "F" for its methodology and transparency in polling.
As a result, I also give this poll zero credibility.
As a result, I also give this poll zero credibility.
B
Bigdogg
Posts: 1,429
Feb 24, 2011 12:03pm
BGFalcons82;687915 wrote:Yep. You are correct. However, the single largest weapon against unscrupulous owners and those wishing to violate employee's safety/health/welfare is the i-phone with it's little tiny camera. No one can get away with sweatshop/illegal employment practices anymore, unless they want to be exposed on the internet and to the myriad of gubmint agencies. This little tool wasn't around 90 years ago when unions were in their infancy, but it' impact today is most profound.
You also forget that many employers ban the use of cell phones on company property.
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Feb 24, 2011 12:38pm
So you break that rule if something egregious is happening. Yes it'd give them a reason to fire you but if you only do it when something really wrong is going on you'll have the evidence to prove it in court.
LJ
Posts: 16,351
Feb 24, 2011 12:46pm
I Wear Pants;690070 wrote:So you break that rule if something egregious is happening. Yes it'd give them a reason to fire you but if you only do it when something really wrong is going on you'll have the evidence to prove it in court.
I think you may be protected by whistleblower laws to an extent
O-Trap
Posts: 14,994
Feb 24, 2011 1:14pm
Eh, possibly, I suppose. The water might be a little murky there, though.LJ;690086 wrote:I think you may be protected by whistleblower laws to an extent
fish82
Posts: 4,111
Feb 24, 2011 4:12pm
"Many?" I doubt that.Bigdogg;690019 wrote:You also forget that many employers ban the use of cell phones on company property.
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Mar 2, 2011 8:57pm
Yeah, unless there is intellectual property involved that they don't want let out I can't imagine why a company wouldn't allow a cell phone.
LJ
Posts: 16,351
Mar 2, 2011 8:59pm
I Wear Pants;697907 wrote:Yeah, unless there is intellectual property involved that they don't want let out I can't imagine why a company wouldn't allow a cell phone.
A friend works at Chase in their home loans building at Easton and it is a fireable offense to have your cell phone out
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Mar 2, 2011 9:11pm
That involves privacy and potential identity theft, etc.
Imma be staying at the Hilton at Easton Saturday. Hopefully I don't get shot in that ghetto.
Imma be staying at the Hilton at Easton Saturday. Hopefully I don't get shot in that ghetto.
LJ
Posts: 16,351
Mar 2, 2011 9:14pm
I Wear Pants;697932 wrote:That involves privacy and potential identity theft, etc.
Imma be staying at the Hilton at Easton Saturday. Hopefully I don't get shot in that ghetto.
Walk around at about 10pm and you will see what some of us are talking about
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Mar 2, 2011 9:26pm
I kinda doubt the Hilton will let the hoodrats hang out there. Although we'll see.
LJ
Posts: 16,351
Mar 2, 2011 9:28pm
I Wear Pants;697949 wrote:I kinda doubt the Hilton will let the hoodrats hang out there. Although we'll see.
go across the street to the mall.
Although that Hilton has a really really really nice bar
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Mar 2, 2011 9:32pm
Yeah, that's pretty much why I decided on it. That and the downtown places were all booked.
S
stlouiedipalma
Posts: 1,797
Mar 2, 2011 11:59pm
LJ;697909 wrote:A friend works at Chase in their home loans building at Easton and it is a fireable offense to have your cell phone out
In reality, many companies ban the use of cell phones for two reasons:
When they are tied up on their phones their productivity is very low, as in zilch.
If they use the phone while on the job (factory floor) there is a potential safety hazard because they may not be able to focus on their immediate surroundings.
The camera issue is one which is already covered by many companies. They forbid taking unauthorized photos of company processes.
B
Bigdogg
Posts: 1,429
Mar 7, 2011 3:41pm
Should be interesting day tomorrow.
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Mar 7, 2011 4:46pm
Walked around a bit at night. Was not reminiscent of anything I'd consider a ghetto.LJ;697953 wrote:go across the street to the mall.
Although that Hilton has a really really really nice bar