If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Forbes)   Schadenfreude time: Unions cry that ObamaCare will shatter their benefits and destroy the 40 hour work week. You supported it, you live with it   (forbes.com) divider line 357
    More: Fail, obamacare, United Food, health insurance, Richard Trumka, perverse incentives, American middle class, UFCW, Teamsters  
•       •       •

2767 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Jul 2013 at 2:31 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



357 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-15 09:37:19 PM

m00: Actually, the purpose of a public corporation is to enrich shareholders. That's it. Anything else would be fraud.


You need to study the history of the corporation as a business entity.

m00: Imagine if you invested savings Random Corp's stock and and one day they gave all their money to charity so your stock was worth nothing


You're purposefully distorting my point into a straw man. Currently corporations have only a single consideration: increasing shareholder value. This results in some pretty negative behavior as externalities are pushed on to the community and employees interests are a cost to be minimized. I was proposing that in addition to maximizing shareholder value, corporate charters could be modified to include not only shareholder but employee and community interests as well. Employee interests could be met by profit sharing. Community interests could be met by reducing externalities.

Now the first reaction to this is of course "how ever will we compete if shareholder value is not given absolute preeminence" but improving the position of workers strengthens the working and middle class who are the groups which engage in the lions share of economic activity.

I'd go so far as to speculate that the single minded focus on maximizing shareholder value has actually undermined long term stability and profitability of the entire business ecosystem with the exception of a small number of very large corporations.
 
2013-07-15 09:43:48 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: b2theory: They aren't "given" preference. They HAVE preference because they own the company.

A shareholder isn't an owner, nor should they be treated like one.
If they want more of the rewards, they should accept more of the responsibility.

Oh, look at that... b2theory: start a private business and don't take it public.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, amirite?

b2theory: I'm not a happy evangelist! I just hate when people refuse to recognize reality and the trade-offs that are being made.

Yes, reality sucks. I'm not arguing against its existence, just that the reality is self-destructive. What possible trade off is there in letting a non-productive, non-responsible shareholder have command over a business's money to the detriment of the business itself? As we were saying, what should happen is the company, employees, and customers come before the shareholder, because without any one of those three, the shareholder has nothing.


First, the shareholder is the legal owner.

The trade-off I am pointing out is that pensions funds are allowed to prosper. We are our masters (worst enemies)
 
2013-07-15 09:44:40 PM
To follow up my brief summary of the various ways the ACA will be paid for, here's a nice pie from the tax foundation:

taxfoundation.org

Details here
 
2013-07-15 09:50:54 PM

b2theory: First, the shareholder is the legal owner.


And this is a terrible thing, because they do nothing to act like it. Non-productive, non-responsible. They're capital, nothing more, and putting capital before labor just leaves you with a pile of capital doing nothing.

b2theory: The trade-off I am pointing out is that pensions funds are allowed to prosper.


You've gone off the derp end. There's nothing about a focus on sustainable businesses (vs. maximizing shareholder value in the short term) that is anathema to pensions prospering. One could argue that a long term, lucrative businesses are ultimately better for investments for the pensions.
 
2013-07-15 09:58:45 PM

Mr Rogers is aroused: If the ACA costs $142 billion a year to sustain, where does that money come from? I would assert as a proponent of this new expenditure, it is YOUR duty to prove where that money comes from. But you and I know where it comes from if it can't be made through operational procedures (co-pays, cancellation fees, etc). It comes from the taxpayers. Because it's a federally backed program.


What copays or cancellation fees?  The ACA isn't an insurance provider.  The ACA does mainly the following things:

A. Bunch of Medicare / Medicaid changes, overall saving a lot of money.
B. Penalties for middle- or high-income individuals that don't have health insurance, and medium to large businesses that don't offer health insurance.  Another major source of revenue.
C. Creates exchanges where people without insurance can purchase insurance at group rates.  The overhead here is paid for by fees for the insurance companies for listing their policies on the exchange, so this is revenue neutral.
D. A lot of new regulations on what insurance policies must cover.  No government spending here.
E. Tax credits for low and middle-income individuals and families who are purchasing their own health care.  Paid for by a combination of the Medicare changes + the penalties.
 
2013-07-15 10:05:42 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Choke on it, union biatches. It's what you wanted. So choke on it.
 
2013-07-15 10:15:34 PM

Aarontology: Conservatives: Outraged about how bad something it will be, until they realize it could be bad for someone they don't like. At which point, they're OK with it.


No, we still hate it ... we just like the fact that the thing we hate is also screwing the people we hate (and that they are just figuring out they were used like pawns).
 
2013-07-15 10:19:19 PM

SunsetLament: No, we still hate it ... we just like the fact that the thing we hate is also screwing the people we hate (and that they are just figuring out they were used like pawns).


Jesus, you can't even tell the truth without tacking on an additional lie.
 
2013-07-15 10:19:43 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: A shareholder isn't an owner, nor should they be treated like one.


I'm going to have to upgrade your Favorite tag from Economic Illiterate (Orange 5) to something stronger.
 
2013-07-15 10:24:12 PM

BMFPitt: I'm going to have to upgrade your Favorite tag from Economic Illiterate (Orange 5) to something stronger.


Won't change the fact that value for the shareholder above all else is killing our economy, and if it's not stopped, capitalism.
 
2013-07-15 10:31:36 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: SunsetLament: No, we still hate it ... we just like the fact that the thing we hate is also screwing the people we hate (and that they are just figuring out they were used like pawns).

Jesus, you can't even tell the truth without tacking on an additional lie.


You do realize who you are talking to right?
 
2013-07-15 10:33:07 PM

Mrtraveler01: You do realize who you are talking to right?


Some trolls have style. The ones who don't even try are just surprising.
 
2013-07-15 10:35:39 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: b2theory: First, the shareholder is the legal owner.

And this is a terrible thing, because they do nothing to act like it. Non-productive, non-responsible. They're capital, nothing more, and putting capital before labor just leaves you with a pile of capital doing nothing.

b2theory: The trade-off I am pointing out is that pensions funds are allowed to prosper.

You've gone off the derp end. There's nothing about a focus on sustainable businesses (vs. maximizing shareholder value in the short term) that is anathema to pensions prospering. One could argue that a long term, lucrative businesses are ultimately better for investments for the pensions.


Capital doesn't do anything but pay for everything.

Towards your other point you are right and wrong. I have not gone full derp. Shareholders demand a growing sustainable business.
 
2013-07-15 10:41:52 PM
Duh!!!
 
2013-07-15 10:42:56 PM

b2theory: Shareholders demand a growing sustainable business.


If only that were true.
Growing and sustainable until next quarter, maybe. Anything that takes longer or doesn't produce exponential growth? Not so much.
 
2013-07-15 11:02:58 PM
And then there's this take on the whole thing:

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/07/15/temp-j15.html

/it may not be what you expect
//and far less cheerful if you want to think it forward
///blessed be spellcheck...a bad cold and the local pharmacy are working together in interesting ways
 
m00
2013-07-15 11:06:22 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: m00: Actually, the purpose of a public corporation is to enrich shareholders. That's it. Anything else would be fraud.

You need to study the history of the corporation as a business entity.


The last refuge of the ignorant and lazy farker: "study it out" :)
 
2013-07-15 11:07:23 PM

Thrag: So you are totally unaware of the existence of the filibuster and the recent history of the GOP using it to make it so that nothing can pass without 60 votes? Did you pay any attention to the actual events surrounding the debate over and eventual passage of the ACA?

If you want to play teacher, it helps to actually know what the fark you are talking about. Your attempt to educate others only demonstrates your ignorance.


Got to it before I did. Dangit!
Yeah it's a damn shame when some people missed out on that first grade math class which should have taught them that 58 does not equal 60. Thanks for the schooling. The morons need it every once in awhile.
 
2013-07-15 11:09:53 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: b2theory: Shareholders demand a growing sustainable business.

If only that were true.
Growing and sustainable until next quarter, maybe. Anything that takes longer or doesn't produce exponential growth? Not so much.


Again, who are the largest shareholder groups in the world........ Pension funds!

I also think leadership can be short sighted. However, pensions (along with everyone else that wants to retire) have ROE expectations. The pensions are insolvent with out it.
 
2013-07-15 11:25:29 PM
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-07-15 11:25:48 PM

b2theory: Again, who are the largest shareholder groups in the world........ Pension funds!

I also think leadership can be short sighted. However, pensions (along with everyone else that wants to retire) have ROE expectations. The pensions are insolvent with out it.


Doesn't really matter who the shareholder is if the expectation is unrealistic or even destructive over the long term.
 
2013-07-15 11:26:49 PM

b2theory: Shareholders demand a growing sustainable business.


And a growing, long term sustainable business requires investment in employees, investment in your physical plant, and investment in quality control and R+D. If all you're concerned with is the next quarter or the next cycle, then shareholders and their short-term take-the-money-and-run attitudes should come first.
When a business puts it's shareholders demands first (those demands being "more money NOW!"), the other three legs of the table are neglected with the employee leg usually neglected first, being the easiest to sever.
 
2013-07-15 11:30:07 PM

m00: Monkeyhouse Zendo: m00: Actually, the purpose of a public corporation is to enrich shareholders. That's it. Anything else would be fraud.

You need to study the history of the corporation as a business entity.

The last refuge of the ignorant and lazy farker: "study it out" :)


Just pointing out that your assertion that corporations were always operated as they currently are is incorrect. Whether you bother to learn about US history is up to you.
 
2013-07-15 11:31:02 PM

Mr Rogers is aroused: Monkeyhouse Zendo: Mr Rogers is aroused: You tried to interject, making this really farking confusing.  The point remains.  It will cost more than it will save or produce in revenue.  Therefore... wait for it.... IT'S UNSUSTAINABLE.

For a very restricted value of unsustainable I suppose that's true. The question is whether the difference between the cost and what it saves / produces in revenue is a good value and benefits the nation. Honestly, based on your usage of the word, it can be easily argued the that pre-Obamacare health care system was unsustainable as well. In fact, I believe that was one of the primary motivators for health care reform.

my opinion would be that because it's centralized, mandated, and govt run, it's a guarantee that it will be a DIRECT EXPENSE on me and my children.  Vs the old system that was so indirect in it's cost to me that it was invisible.


It was invisible right up until you got a bill each year stating that your premiums were going up again, and usually they went up a lot.  You're paying no matter what, and prior to the ACA, they just shunted the cost of those who couldn't pay their medical bills onto those people who have insurance.  Why else do you think medical services are so damn high?  You were already paying for the 'free riders' through higher premiums and higher costs for medical procedures/care.

But you go right on beveling that those costs were 'invisible' and you weren't paying for anyone but yourself.  You're deluded if you believe it, but I sure as hell won't stop you.
 
2013-07-15 11:49:52 PM

rewind2846: b2theory: Shareholders demand a growing sustainable business.

And a growing, long term sustainable business requires investment in employees, investment in your physical plant, and investment in quality control and R+D. If all you're concerned with is the next quarter or the next cycle, then shareholders and their short-term take-the-money-and-run attitudes should come first.
When a business puts it's shareholders demands first (those demands being "more money NOW!"), the other three legs of the table are neglected with the employee leg usually neglected first, being the easiest to sever.


I agree with your points about how to sustainably grow a business. I tend to find rational shareholders to be long term investors.
 
2013-07-16 12:03:26 AM

b2theory: I agree with your points about how to sustainably grow a business. I tend to find rational shareholders to be long term investors.


Then most of the market is not rational.

Fifty years ago, the average share of stock would be held for eight years before being sold.  Today the average share is not even held four months.

The market today is dominated by the short-term gain and the next quarter's income, because that's as long as the current investors are going to stick it out.
 
2013-07-16 12:04:11 AM
Here's what it will do, Union Crybabies:

Give everyone access to medical benefits that you have been demanding out of your employers for decades.

So, what this will do, effectively, is loosen your control.


(incidentally, my girlfriend just got her first copy of the UAW's quarterly magazine .. she worked a Union job back about 5 years ago, for a year... so she's been out of the Union for 3 years.. )
 
2013-07-16 12:17:03 AM

MadHatter500: Summercat: Choo-Choo Bear: This is brought to you by the same folks that don't understand increasing the minimum wage increases unemployment.  Businesses aren't going to cut into their profits to pay more.  They are going to find a way to decrease their losses, and that generally means cutting back on employee hours / shifts / benefits / etc...

It's not a good thing, but it's a true thing.  Economics 101.

Which will then hit their ability to make profits, when they lack the manpower to do things.

My mother is an assistant manager at a Dollar Tree. They had some shennanagins with another AM who wasn't properly getting work done, so merch didn't go out and sales suffered. The district manager cut the store's availble hours - and now my mother can't get enough people working to get the store sorted out, and the DM wants to cut hours even more.

I... I don't understand this. I honestly don't. If a problem can be solved by adding manpower, WHY CUT MANPOWER?

Walmart is running into the same problem.

He's trying to punish the store managers without actually punishing them.  In theory (don't know Dollar Tree policies) managers are salaried with performance incentives.  Here's what is running through that District Manager's mind:

The store must do X, Y and Z.  There are managers not pulling their weight/performing correctly.  So I will cut the available workforce so those managers have to pick up the slack.  Ie. instead of working 56 hours a week, they'll have to work 80 to get things done.  They will stop slacking off, then I can reward them with additional worker hours.

This of course does not work.  What should happen is that the DM has a long talk with the store manager why his store is not performing correctly.  This gives the store manager an opportunity to ask for changes - ie. get rid of the slacker.

Now you can see from this there is not one, but three people not doing their job.  I'd suggest your mom get a job from a different retailer.  The stupid in her m ...


This is a disease that gets in when you manage by numbers, which is unfortunately, something that tends to happen at levels when you're not in the trenches all the time.  The numbers say you don't need as many hours, because your business is falling.  Of course, your business is falling may have to do with the specific people or the number of people that you have not being sufficient, neither of which are addressed by this particular solution.
 
2013-07-16 01:14:16 AM

Sergeant Grumbles: SunsetLament: No, we still hate it ... we just like the fact that the thing we hate is also screwing the people we hate (and that they are just figuring out they were used like pawns).

Jesus, you can't even tell the truth without tacking on an additional lie.


No, actually I'm one of the foremost authorities on my own opinion ... I assure, I still hate it.  And I can also assure you that I like lower middle-class liberal union pawns getting screwed by their own union, too.
 
2013-07-16 01:44:56 AM

tjfly: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 297x383]


Wow I'll bet you thought you were funny or entertaining with that total waste of a post.
Imagine all the cool shiat you could have posted instead.
Oh well.
 
m00
2013-07-16 02:44:39 AM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Just pointing out that your assertion that corporations were always operated as they currently are is incorrect. Whether you bother to learn about US history is up to you.


I know what you were doing, and it's not that :)
 
2013-07-16 03:01:43 AM

RaiderFanMikeP: Mike Chewbacca: So it's Obama's fault that some CEOs are assholes who refuse to take care of their employees? Human Resources?  HR?  HR Department ID?

CEOs only care about quality  workmanship reputation child labor laws in 3rd world countriesstock price..



That's all they are hired to do: make money for the stockholders
 
2013-07-16 05:41:37 AM

m00: The fact is, government dropped the ball here.

 Corporations are composed of people.

Being part of a corporation does not relieve these people of moral and ethical obligation.

Does being part of a lynch mob mean you're not guilty of murder?
 
2013-07-16 05:43:30 AM

SunsetLament: And I can also assure you that I like lower middle-class liberal union pawns getting screwed by their own union, too.


Because poor people, and their children, not having health care is hilarious!

You are excrement.
 
m00
2013-07-16 06:05:02 AM

Without Fail: Corporations are composed of people.

Being part of a corporation does not relieve these people of moral and ethical obligation.


Actually, if you are part of a public corporation you have a fiduciary duty to your shareholders. You have legal obligations. But you don't have moral or ethical obligations, because having these obligations conflicts with your duty to shareholders. It is what it is. I realize this sounds awful, but the counter-balance is government which creates regulations to align a corporation's legal obligations with the moral and ethical values of society.

Does being part of a lynch mob mean you're not guilty of murder?

Murder is illegal. Using a loophole isn't illegal, that's why it's a loophole. It's necessarily legal.
 
2013-07-16 07:09:00 AM

m00: It is what it is. I realize this sounds awful, but the counter-balance is government which creates regulations to align a corporation's legal obligations with the moral and ethical values of society.


Bullshiat. The fact that something is not illegal does not make it right.
The very same people who claim that it was the governments job to stop them are constantly trying to reduce regulations and get smaller government.
 'The government didn't stop me' is morally equivalent to 'I was just following orders'.


It is a cop out by 'Libertarians' to excuse their own lack of character and personal responsibility.
 
m00
2013-07-16 07:14:08 AM

Without Fail: m00: It is what it is. I realize this sounds awful, but the counter-balance is government which creates regulations to align a corporation's legal obligations with the moral and ethical values of society.

Bullshiat. The fact that something is not illegal does not make it right.
The very same people who claim that it was the governments job to stop them are constantly trying to reduce regulations and get smaller government.
 'The government didn't stop me' is morally equivalent to 'I was just following orders'.


It is a cop out by 'Libertarians' to excuse their own lack of character and personal responsibility.


you really should try some critical reading/thinking if you want to write a credible outrage post. just some friendly advice :)
 
2013-07-16 07:24:29 AM

m00: you really should try some critical reading/thinking if you want to write a credible outrage post. just some friendly advice :)


I'm not outraged. Most people will rationalize doing what they want by any means necessary.

I just happen to have a conscience.
 
2013-07-16 09:20:35 AM

Sergeant Grumbles: The first thing to remember is that without the company, the employee, and the customer, the shareholder has precisely dick, and that is precisely what they should be owed until those things are taken care of.


without the factory, equipment, loans, payroll and means to get the product to market, the employee doesn't have dick either.  You can be the most skilled, trained bumper-affixer in the world, without a large, very expensive to operate and maintain facility, your skills arent worth much.

Sergeant Grumbles: And this is a terrible thing, because they do nothing to act like it. Non-productive, non-responsible.


Yes this is entirely what happens.  The board of a company sits on their ass and stares at a large pile of money.  The fact that you say this means you havent a freaking clue what you're talking about.

Its not like they meet and discuss mergers and acquisitions that might benefit the company, enabling it to hire more people
Or put their capital to work buying new facilities, expanding, buying licenses to operate.

Yes, they are sooooo greedy and evil that they want to sit around and do absolutely everything but try to make more money.
The fact that you vote scares me and makes me weep for society.
 
2013-07-16 09:44:54 AM

Cletus C.: That would be a nice recitation of the union position, for sure. But unfortunately for that position, public salary information is public record. You can find our exactly how your private sector pay compares. Many times, the public employees make more, plus have a wide array of benefits. A lot of private-sector employees haven't received pay increases since the recession started and have seen their share of health care costs rise.


Not all public employees are union. Also, not all unions are the same, especially private sector and public sector. Private sector unions tend to want more and more. Public unions basically want to try and not lose as much as they can. It's a stark difference between a UAW worker picketing because they want a 10% raise and two more vacation days a year versus a teacher's union trying to keep class sizes manageable and not get stuck with a horrible insurance plan that rivals Walmart's.

The difference on wages here is that the private company sees raises as a cost and to save money, or simply make more money, one of the first ways to do so is avoid giving pay raises. Anymore, those wages are being used to pay CEOs huge sums of money.

That being said, I started in private companies and always got a raise every year. It may have been menial, but we got them. On the public side, it was because the money wasn't there. The unions started negotiating a 3% raise, which they got for a couple years, but then the district hit hard financial times and they agreed that they would forgo pay raises and did for for 5+ years.

See the difference? The public union voted to not take a pay raise because it was what was necessary and because they knew it was for the good of the organization. They didn't shut down an entire automotive plant for weeks because they didn't get that raise. The only time they ever got close to striking was when the school district was wanting to go to outsourcing and eliminate almost the entire union staff. The school district won mainly because the union didn't provide strike pay like private unions might do and the workers simply couldn't afford to go on strike for weeks or months. And it would have been months because the district would have brought in contractors to take on their responsibilities, which is exactly what they wanted to do in the first place and as such be in no hurry or need to bring anyone back to the table.
 
2013-07-16 10:19:17 AM

A Dark Evil Omen: Major moderate union leaders who are strong Democratic supporters are calling for minor adjustments in ACA implementation while still supporting ACA as a whole. Wow. I'm... *yawn* shocked.


But NOOOOOOOOOOOO, in 2013 America you have to with us or against us, NO COMPROMISE.
 
2013-07-16 03:55:50 PM

m00: The Democrats held both houses by wide margins.


Farkin' filibusters, how do they work?
 
2013-07-16 05:43:27 PM

red5ish: IlGreven: The My Little Pony Killer: Actually, Obamacare will keep your working situation exactly the same, except now you actually have a chance at qualifying for and getting healthcare.

/and I'm supposed to be upset about this, why again?

...if you really think that corporations won't try and pull the "Part-time no benefits" stunt, then you probably think that some Texas hospital will ever give admitting privileges to a known abortion doctor, especially after the new law is in place.

The ACA defines "full time" as 30-hours per week, per month, on average. Good luck trying to run a competitive business without full time employees under that definition.


Simple: Workers work 4-hour days, 7 days a week. Now, not only are they working 28 hours per week, they don't get weekends off. Problem solved.

/And you just know Wal-Mart will try this, too.
 
2013-07-16 05:52:45 PM

b2theory: Shareholders demand a growing sustainable business.


Bullshiat.  They want the biggest profit they can get. If that means destroying a company and looting the corpse, then so be it.
 
2013-07-16 06:39:54 PM

IlGreven: red5ish: IlGreven: The My Little Pony Killer: Actually, Obamacare will keep your working situation exactly the same, except now you actually have a chance at qualifying for and getting healthcare.

/and I'm supposed to be upset about this, why again?

...if you really think that corporations won't try and pull the "Part-time no benefits" stunt, then you probably think that some Texas hospital will ever give admitting privileges to a known abortion doctor, especially after the new law is in place.

The ACA defines "full time" as 30-hours per week, per month, on average. Good luck trying to run a competitive business without full time employees under that definition.

Simple: Workers work 4-hour days, 7 days a week. Now, not only are they working 28 hours per week, they don't get weekends off. Problem solved.

/And you just know Wal-Mart will try this, too.


So I worked at a golf course one summer.  They'll actually all start doing this once Obamacare kicks in because you get 90+% of your work done between 5 AM and 9 AM before the golfers get out, and then nothing done thereafter.

So hire a dozen guys to show up at 5 AM, give them fark-all for benefits, and then have 3 guys stay on as full timers to do the necessary all-day work.
 
2013-07-16 06:50:50 PM

meyerkev: So I worked at a golf course one summer. They'll actually all start doing this once Obamacare kicks in because you get 90+% of your work done between 5 AM and 9 AM before the golfers get out, and then nothing done thereafter.

So hire a dozen guys to show up at 5 AM, give them fark-all for benefits, and then have 3 guys stay on as full timers to do the necessary all-day work.


So the obvious question is, why weren't the employees all part-time already?
 
2013-07-16 07:18:25 PM

HeartBurnKid: meyerkev: So I worked at a golf course one summer. They'll actually all start doing this once Obamacare kicks in because you get 90+% of your work done between 5 AM and 9 AM before the golfers get out, and then nothing done thereafter.

So hire a dozen guys to show up at 5 AM, give them fark-all for benefits, and then have 3 guys stay on as full timers to do the necessary all-day work.

So the obvious question is, why weren't the employees all part-time already?


Because at $8/hour/5-6 months a year, it's hard to convince people to drive out into the middle of farking nowhere and only work 4 hours.  Heck, I only got the job because of nepotism.

And since we didn't have enough people to get everything done before the golfers came out, we had no choice but to keep going after the golfers came out (Only got hit twice.  Thank god I'm fat and they both hit me in the gut.)

At max, there was:

Super (who actually did work on the course unlike a lot of other courses)
Asst Super (who was the only person who was legally allowed to spray pesticides and as such had job security)
Mechanic (who was always behind because 15-20 year old mowers break more often than 15-20 year old cars)
The farking spy who didn't do any farking work and was only there to tell on us to the boss, that farker.
The rough mower guy.
5 fulltimers working 6 days a week (4 weekdays plus 2 halfs which should have made 40) 3 of whom were part-time college students.

Of course because everyone took really short lunches (I had it down to 7 minutes), every once in a while we'd work 16 hour Saturdays, and 2 guys decided to take the entire month of July off (to go make more money as extras on some movie), so everyone else worked 7 days while they were gone.   I think I averaged 55 hours a week all the time I was there* and once bounced off 70.

*and that was only because when it broke 100, the boss would let everyone go early because we weren't getting anything done.
 
2013-07-16 08:22:58 PM

meyerkev: HeartBurnKid: meyerkev: So I worked at a golf course one summer. They'll actually all start doing this once Obamacare kicks in because you get 90+% of your work done between 5 AM and 9 AM before the golfers get out, and then nothing done thereafter.

So hire a dozen guys to show up at 5 AM, give them fark-all for benefits, and then have 3 guys stay on as full timers to do the necessary all-day work.

So the obvious question is, why weren't the employees all part-time already?

Because at $8/hour/5-6 months a year, it's hard to convince people to drive out into the middle of farking nowhere and only work 4 hours.  Heck, I only got the job because of nepotism.


And since we didn't have enough people to get everything done before the golfers came out, we had no choice but to keep going after the golfers came out (Only got hit twice.  Thank god I'm fat and they both hit me in the gut.)

At max, there was:

Super (who actually did work on the course unlike a lot of other courses)
Asst Super (who was the only person who was legally allowed to spray pesticides and as such had job security)
Mechanic (who was always behind because 15-20 year old mowers break more often than 15-20 year old cars)
The farking spy who didn't do any farking work and was only there to tell on us to the boss, that farker.
The rough mower guy.
5 fulltimers working 6 days a week (4 weekdays plus 2 halfs which should have made 40) 3 of whom were part-time college students.

Of course because everyone took really short lunches (I had it down to 7 minutes), every once in a while we'd work 16 hour Saturdays, and 2 guys decided to take the entire month of July off (to go make more money as extras on some movie), so everyone else worked 7 days while they were gone.   I think I averaged 55 hours a week all the time I was there* and once bounced off 70.

*and that was only because when it broke 100, the boss would let everyone go early because we weren't getting anything done.


So what, exactly, is going to change that makes it possible to convince people to accept those terms now?
 
2013-07-16 09:00:02 PM

DoctorCal: So what, exactly, is going to change that makes it possible to convince people to accept those terms now?


So most golf courses aren't in the middle of farking nowhere (to the extent that that one was anyways.  It was entirely possible to not see a single car on the road on the entire ride there through farm country).

Also, most golf courses don't pay $8/hour (Heck, McDonald'spays $9 for new hires and they've got WAY better working conditions).  I've heard $10-$13 with occasional bumps to $15 for long-term workers at the more exclusive private courses and the ones that do pay $8/hour get skinhead white supremacist ex-cons, college students mooching off their parents for room and board (I made $6K in PROFIT that summer. My CS internships that paid 3x as much couldn't match that), and Latinos (good) who don't speak English (bad).  $12/hour isn't great, but they're working lots of OT (At time and a half.  I cleared $300 on $8/hour over 2.5 days on Memorial Day weekend when we turned the sprinklers on for the first time) and also spending $600/month on a pretty nice 1 BR (or as mentioned, mooching off parents).  .

Also, a lot of these courses give free-ish golf as a benefit, so it's entirely possible to find a bunch of retired dudes who want to get free golf.  I kid you not, we had a 60-year old retired guy on the maintenance crew who had been making $200K/year as an engineer at IBM making $8/hour at the course and the entire front crew (where you don't have to do physical labor all day) was over 55.

So even if they shifted over to mostly part-time crews (with a more-or-less consistent schedule because of the sun which puts it one-up on a lot of other places), it'd be entirely possible to find people who wanted to work 5-9, get free golf, go home, shower, and then go to another job from 10-??? (I know there were a lot of businesses downtown that opened at 10 or 11, so this would at least be possible).
 
2013-07-16 09:01:48 PM

meyerkev: McDonald'spays


Also, just an FYI to Modmins, this is not the first time I've seen this bug where it strips out the space immediately following the italicized word.
 
Displayed 50 of 357 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report