Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(RealClear)   Employees, thank you for helping us achieve $511,000,000 in profit last quarter. We need 1,100 of you to pack up your things and leave   (realclear.com) divider line 358
    More: Obvious, Texas Instruments  
•       •       •

23032 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Jan 2014 at 11:59 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-23 11:16:13 AM  

Langdon_777: You use the opportunity of having 100 trusted employees to move into a new field,


I see you made the leap of assuming these were trusted employees.  What if they are employees that spend all their time at work here on Fark and not being either productive or trusted.

If they were, maybe they would be making themselves employable.
 
2014-01-23 11:36:44 AM  

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: Suppose you have a business that has 1,000 employees and it's making a profit.  But an assessment is done and it's found that with some rearranging of how to do things, 900 employees can do the work that needs to be done without them being overworked.  Why should you have to keep 100 employees on the payroll that really aren't needed just because you're making a profit?


Because I am a decent human being who would care about my employees, and would feel terrible for having to let anyone go that didn't deserve to be let go?

If I was still making profit (ie. did not need to cut costs to stay in the black / green) I'd find some way to not fire 10% of my workforce, or at the least ensure I was able to give sufficient severance packages and early retirements and such.
 
2014-01-23 11:38:05 AM  

HeadLever: To your ad hominems? Why would I?


No, to anything! And this is something of a recurring theme when it comes to you. And now you're just flailing about like an idiot.

Do you even know what an ad hominem is?
 
2014-01-23 11:55:28 AM  

Ishkur: No, to anything! And this is something of a recurring theme when it comes to you. And now you're just flailing about like an idiot.

Do you even know what an ad hominem is?


It is when you attack the person instead of addressing the issue.  kind of like your post here:

I have you farkied as "rightwing dumbass and wealth apologist",

Or don't you remember saying that?


Lastly before I quit this post for good - If anyone is flailing, it is you.  Especially when you have to change the context of the argument from what you actually quoted to another unrelated post just in order to make your responses seem reasonable. That kind of arguing is intellectually dishonest and you full well know it.
 
2014-01-23 11:59:59 AM  

HeadLever: Langdon_777: You use the opportunity of having 100 trusted employees to move into a new field,

I see you made the leap of assuming these were trusted employees.  What if they are employees that spend all their time at work here on Fark and not being either productive or trusted.

If they were, maybe they would be making themselves employable.


I am a trained manager.  I know that the secret is too set cleverly calculated targets.  If they complete them in the time I needed them too, then they can go home for all I care.  If they stayed at worked to check out Fark, I would likely be premoting them.
 
2014-01-23 12:26:01 PM  

HeadLever: Lastly before I quit this post for good


Before you do, can you post that CBO graph again? That's like your own personal "potato!" card. It really encapsulates, in visual poetry, how stubborn and resistant you are to any new information. That your ego is so entrenched that you cannot stand being challenged on any topic, and that your immediate reaction is to fall back on something you found a long time ago on a WeathNOW! economic endtimes blog.

HeadLever: Especially when you have to change the context of the argument from what you actually quoted to another unrelated post


I did not. I showed you this already.

Here is your post: #c88857367
Here is my reply, linking to it in the first line: http://www.fark.com/comments/8110851/88857367#c88857367

So you're wrong. Objectively and factually wrong. I've proven you wrong. Over and over again. I don't know how much clearer I can make that. I know you can't admit when you're wrong (unlike me. I have admitted when I'm wrong even in arguments with you), but you're going to have to eat this one. Relax. Lick your wounds move on with your life. No one's keeping score here. It's not that important in the grand scheme of things.
 
2014-01-23 12:32:45 PM  

Ishkur: HeadLever: Lastly before I quit this post for good

Before you do, can you post that CBO graph again? That's like your own personal "potato!" card. It really encapsulates, in visual poetry, how stubborn and resistant you are to any new information. That your ego is so entrenched that you cannot stand being challenged on any topic, and that your immediate reaction is to fall back on something you found a long time ago on a WeathNOW! economic endtimes blog.

HeadLever: Especially when you have to change the context of the argument from what you actually quoted to another unrelated post

I did not. I showed you this already.

Here is your post: #c88857367
Here is my reply, linking to it in the first line: http://www.fark.com/comments/8110851/88857367#c88857367

So you're wrong. Objectively and factually wrong. I've proven you wrong. Over and over again. I don't know how much clearer I can make that. I know you can't admit when you're wrong (unlike me. I have admitted when I'm wrong even in arguments with you), but you're going to have to eat this one. Relax. Lick your wounds move on with your life. No one's keeping score here. It's not that important in the grand scheme of things.


NO ONE IS KEEPING SCORE!!!

That could be a mantra for all of Live. LIVE IT!
 
2014-01-23 12:44:52 PM  

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: Suppose you have a business that has 1,000 employees and it's making a profit.  But an assessment is done and it's found that with some rearranging of how to do things, 900 employees can do the work that needs to be done without them being overworked.  Why should you have to keep 100 employees on the payroll that really aren't needed just because you're making a profit?


They're not laying off 10% of their workforce, they're laying off .03%. Everyone wants to get outraged about this, but I'm not seeing it.
 
Displayed 8 of 358 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 »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report