Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 Next »
Reply To Thread

96% of Florida welfare cash recipients pass drug tests.Follow

#102 Sep 01 2011 at 2:07 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,831 posts
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:

We reduce the likelihood that our tax dollars are being spent subsidizing the very things which may be creating the need for the assistance in the first place? I thought the objective here was pretty obvious. You honestly can't figure out why we might want to make sure that people receiving public assistance aren't using illegal drugs?
You're making another big-ass assumption. You're assuming that federal welfare dollars are buying drugs.


No. I'm assuming that everything else being equal people who are using illegal drugs are less likely to be able to obtain and/or keep good paying jobs and thus get themselves off of the government assistance in the first place. And certainly, if someone is spending any money at all on drugs that's money that could have been spent on whatever it is we're paying the assistance money for.

Quote:
People usually get assistance because they're injured or disabled in some way and unable to work, not because they're addicts.


Not all injuries and disabilities permanently prevent someone from working. But habitual drug use often does. The conservative approach here is to try to make government assistance temporary to the greatest degree possible.

Quote:
Sure, some money does buy drugs. Some probably buy guns too. Why are we not searching all the homes of welfare recipients? Some money likely buys hookers, some other's may fraudulently spend their food-stamps on booze. I bet lots of medicaid monies is spent on legal but unnecessary drugs too.


Sure. But we're focusing on money that's being spent on things that are likely to hinder someone's ability to re-enter the workforce. I don't agree with the idea that because an action doesn't solve every problem we shouldn't employ it. It does address this problem.

Quote:
So, no I honestly can't figure out why anyone would want to spend billions of dollars on a program to make it less equitable, less efficient and extremely intrusive. Why not take that money and route out the fraud in the system?


Well, a lot of fraud in the assistance system does revolve around or include illegal drug use, but that's really not the point. We should assess the viability of this program on its own merits. If we can get even a few percent increase in the rate of people who are able to get off the programs and into the workforce, it will pay for itself. And like I said earlier, it's not always just about the money. If we're going to spend money one way or another, I'd rather we do it in ways which encourage productive behavior than in ways which do the opposite.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#103 Sep 01 2011 at 2:27 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
Well, a lot of fraud in the assistance system does revolve around or include illegal drug use, but that's really not the point.


Gbaji, talking out of his ass again.
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#104 Sep 01 2011 at 2:39 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,831 posts
Technogeek wrote:
Quote:
Well, a lot of fraud in the assistance system does revolve around or include illegal drug use, but that's really not the point.


Gbaji, talking out of his ass again.


What part of "but that's not really the point" didn't you get? The fact that I happen to believe that a good percentage of fraud in the system does involve people who are using illegal drugs while on welfare is in addition to the other reasons why I think this is a good idea.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#105 Sep 01 2011 at 2:54 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
Technogeek wrote:
Quote:
Well, a lot of fraud in the assistance system does revolve around or include illegal drug use, but that's really not the point.


Gbaji, talking out of his ass again.


What part of "but that's not really the point" didn't you get? The fact that I happen to believe that a good percentage of fraud in the system does involve people who are using illegal drugs while on welfare is in addition to the other reasons why I think this is a good idea.


Ah, but you said "There is", not "I think there is". You constantly state things as facts, that are really just your opinions. This is yet another example of your poor writing ability.

That's the point, Mr. clueless.
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#106 Sep 01 2011 at 3:02 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,831 posts
Technogeek wrote:
Ah, but you said "There is", not "I think there is". You constantly state things as facts, that are really just your opinions. This is yet another example of your poor writing ability.


The difference between a fact and an opinion isn't based on whether one write "I think" in front of it. But hey! Like I said, this is a side point. If you don't like it, or don't agree, feel free to ignore it. It's interesting that you choose to zero in on the one part of my post that I went out of my way to say wasn't required or necessary to the point I was making.

Quote:
That's the point, Mr. clueless.


Kinda off target then, wasn't it?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#107 Sep 01 2011 at 3:09 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
Technogeek wrote:
Ah, but you said "There is", not "I think there is". You constantly state things as facts, that are really just your opinions. This is yet another example of your poor writing ability.


The difference between a fact and an opinion isn't based on whether one write "I think" in front of it. But hey! Like I said, this is a side point. If you don't like it, or don't agree, feel free to ignore it. It's interesting that you choose to zero in on the one part of my post that I went out of my way to say wasn't required or necessary to the point I was making.

Quote:
That's the point, Mr. clueless.


Kinda off target then, wasn't it?


Actually, I just like to give you sh*t when you type stupid things. We all have to be amused somehow.
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#108 Sep 03 2011 at 9:46 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,699 posts


gbaji wrote:
I'm most concerned about nudging that larger percentage on the right path.


When did you start voting Democrat?
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#109 Sep 06 2011 at 6:51 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,831 posts
Timelordwho wrote:


gbaji wrote:
I'm most concerned about nudging that larger percentage on the right path.


When did you start voting Democrat?


At the exact same moment when what I'm arguing became a Democrat position. Oh wait! It isn't, is it? WTF?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#110 Sep 07 2011 at 5:14 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,033 posts
Elinda wrote:


Anyone here have to pass a drug test for their job?


It's illegal here, as it should be.

It is absolutely insane that someone could be barred from employment because they had a puff of pot on the weekend. Give me a break.

Meanwhile they could be passed out on their front lawn, drunk as a skunk 7 days a week but that's okay.

As long as employees are not coming to work impaired, it should be their own damn business what they do on the weekend.
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#111 Sep 08 2011 at 10:46 AM Rating: Decent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,611 posts
Olorinus wrote:
Elinda wrote:


Anyone here have to pass a drug test for their job?


It's illegal here, as it should be.

It is absolutely insane that someone could be barred from employment because they had a puff of pot on the weekend. Give me a break.

Meanwhile they could be passed out on their front lawn, drunk as a skunk 7 days a week but that's okay.

As long as employees are not coming to work impaired, it should be their own damn business what they do on the weekend.
While I'm not a supporter of companies testing employees, as an employer I can think of a couple of reasons why it would be important information from our perspective and could easily influence why we would not want someone who was a drug user.


As for the drunk as a skunk comment, you can blame Human Rights for that around here. I can't even fire someone for being drunk at work unless I've exhausted every possible opportunity to help them seek and receive help. Why? Because Alcoholism is a disease and you can't fire someone for having a disease. Thanks lefties.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#112varusword75, Posted: Sep 08 2011 at 10:53 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Olo,
#113 Sep 08 2011 at 10:58 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,813 posts
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
Olorinus wrote:
Elinda wrote:


Anyone here have to pass a drug test for their job?


It's illegal here, as it should be.

It is absolutely insane that someone could be barred from employment because they had a puff of pot on the weekend. Give me a break.

Meanwhile they could be passed out on their front lawn, drunk as a skunk 7 days a week but that's okay.

As long as employees are not coming to work impaired, it should be their own damn business what they do on the weekend.
While I'm not a supporter of companies testing employees, as an employer I can think of a couple of reasons why it would be important information from our perspective and could easily influence why we would not want someone who was a drug user.


As for the drunk as a skunk comment, you can blame Human Rights for that around here. I can't even fire someone for being drunk at work unless I've exhausted every possible opportunity to help them seek and receive help. Why? Because Alcoholism is a disease and you can't fire someone for having a disease. Thanks lefties.
Do many of your employees turn to booze while at work?

I'm not sure what the laws/policies are precisely. I know that we too need to provide for rehab before firing an employee for an addiction. However, it's quite easy to fire someone for breaking the law. So, if they drink and drive while at work, they're gone.


Edited, Sep 8th 2011 7:01pm by Elinda
____________________________
LOOK here.
#114 Sep 08 2011 at 10:59 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,611 posts
Smiley: lol No. But with the number of businesses we oversee as a management company, it does come up.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#115 Sep 08 2011 at 11:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
9,033 posts
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
While I'm not a supporter of companies testing employees, as an employer I can think of a couple of reasons why it would be important information from our perspective and could easily influence why we would not want someone who was a drug user.

As for the drunk as a skunk comment, you can blame Human Rights for that around here. I can't even fire someone for being drunk at work unless I've exhausted every possible opportunity to help them seek and receive help. Why? Because Alcoholism is a disease and you can't fire someone for having a disease. Thanks lefties.


I am curious, why would it matter to your company if someone occasionally takes a toke on the weekend? I can see if they were a meth fiend or whatever, but pot is essentially harmless. (Once again, as long as people aren't doing it on the job)

As for the whole drinking thing I generally agree with you - I can imagine it would be frustrating from an employer's perspective to deal with that. At the same time I can see the argument for attempting to get an employee help before canning them. I can't see how firing them would make them more likely to get better, especially given the lack of real supports out there for addictions.

That said, there are just some professions where it shouldn't be tolerated for a minute - for example - teachers. I've known people who had teachers get caught drinking in class and get to keep their jobs for years, and only after repeatedly failing to shape up they were fired. Once something strays into territory where others might be harmed there should be no tolerance whatsoever.

____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#116 Sep 08 2011 at 12:03 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Olorinus wrote:
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
While I'm not a supporter of companies testing employees, as an employer I can think of a couple of reasons why it would be important information from our perspective and could easily influence why we would not want someone who was a drug user.

As for the drunk as a skunk comment, you can blame Human Rights for that around here. I can't even fire someone for being drunk at work unless I've exhausted every possible opportunity to help them seek and receive help. Why? Because Alcoholism is a disease and you can't fire someone for having a disease. Thanks lefties.


I am curious, why would it matter to your company if someone occasionally takes a toke on the weekend? I can see if they were a meth fiend or whatever, but pot is essentially harmless. (Once again, as long as people aren't doing it on the job)


High-profile jobs, maybe? Pot has a bad public image, whether you agree with that or not. If someone is publicly busted for pot, it could reflect poorly on the company in the public's eye.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#117 Sep 08 2011 at 12:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,611 posts
I wouldn't be worried about someone smoking weed, but more of the hardcore drugs. And it's not an image issues, so much as potential theft issue to pay for such addictions. Serious gambling issues would be another concern.

Quote:
At the same time I can see the argument for attempting to get an employee help before canning them. I can't see how firing them would make them more likely to get better, especially given the lack of real supports out there for addictions.
I'm not sure how someone elses problems should be something I have to solve.

Edited, Sep 8th 2011 3:07pm by Uglysasquatch
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#118 Sep 08 2011 at 12:14 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,033 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:

High-profile jobs, maybe? Pot has a bad public image, whether you agree with that or not. If someone is publicly busted for pot, it could reflect poorly on the company in the public's eye.


Eh, I guess it depends where you live and what you do... first of all, no one is busted here for pot unless they are growing/selling - the police officers involved would rather not fill out a bunch of paperwork so that crown council could shrug their shoulders and toss the case in the wastepaper bin.

And considering most of the press here (as far as I can tell) is pro-decriminalization, I don't see a lot of bad image happening if some police officer was having a bad day and decided to try to get you in trouble for it (not to mention you would have to be an important public figure for it to even register as a story)...and once again - simple possession of a small amount of pot would never make it past crown council. (Here charges are not laid until crown council assesses the likelihood of conviction)

Honestly for a lot of people it would probably help their career. We have a Pot Party here, and it IS our province's biggest export. Would probably only hurt someone/a brand if they were heavily reliant on the Chinese community or another similar conservative leaning demographic.

So

a) No one would ever even hear about it if you did happen to get caught smoking (unless you were hanging out in an elementary school playground getting toddlers high or something)

b) The chance of actually getting charged with simple possession is quite small (again unless you were hanging out in an elementary school playground getting toddlers high or something)

c) Smoking weed is not seen as a big deal by most people here - because almost everyone either smokes themselves or know someone who smokes or smoked it when they were in college.

Edited, Sep 8th 2011 11:16am by Olorinus
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#119 Sep 08 2011 at 12:16 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,033 posts
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
I'm not sure how someone elses problems should be something I have to solve.



Yeah, I can understand why you would feel that way, and ideally, you shouldn't have to. We should have more proactive supports out there to stop addictions before they get out of control, and to support people once they have gotten out of control.

Also... what do you think of this:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2092004,00.html

Edited, Sep 8th 2011 11:18am by Olorinus
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#120 Sep 08 2011 at 12:21 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Olorinus wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:

High-profile jobs, maybe? Pot has a bad public image, whether you agree with that or not. If someone is publicly busted for pot, it could reflect poorly on the company in the public's eye.


Eh, I guess it depends where you live and what you do... first of all, no one is busted here for pot unless they are growing/selling - the police officers involved would rather not fill out a bunch of paperwork so that crown council could shrug their shoulders and toss the case in the wastepaper bin.

And considering most of the press here (as far as I can tell) is pro-decriminalization, I don't see a lot of bad image happening if some police officer was having a bad day and decided to try to get you in trouble for it (not to mention you would have to be an important public figure for it to even register as a story)...and once again - simple possession of a small amount of pot would never make it past crown council. (Here charges are not laid until crown council assesses the likelihood of conviction)

Honestly for a lot of people it would probably help their career. We have a Pot Party here, and it IS our province's biggest export. Would probably only hurt someone/a brand if they were heavily reliant on the Chinese community or another similar conservative leaning demographic.

So

a) No one would ever even hear about it if you did happen to get caught smoking (unless you were hanging out in an elementary school playground getting toddlers high or something)

b) The chance of actually getting charged with simple possession is quite small (again unless you were hanging out in an elementary school playground getting toddlers high or something)

c) Smoking weed is not seen as a big deal by most people here - because almost everyone either smokes themselves or know someone who smokes or smoked it when they were in college.

Edited, Sep 8th 2011 11:16am by Olorinus


*shrug*

I think public perception of it is changing, but as you said, it depends on the area. I've lived in places where it'd be a big deal. Silent majority and whatnot.

Personally, I don't know if I'd ever see a real need to drug test for it. It's just that there are enough plausible reasons for it that I'm not shocked if a few places do it. If I had to guess, I'd say that won't last, though.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#121 Sep 08 2011 at 12:23 PM Rating: Excellent
******
41,226 posts
Olorinus wrote:
We should have more proactive supports out there to stop addictions before they get out of control, and to support people once they have gotten out of control.
I don't see a Post Count Anonymous in my area. For some of the posters here. Not me. I can quit posting whenever I want. I just choose not to.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#122 Sep 08 2011 at 12:32 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
25,526 posts
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
I'm not sure how someone elses problems should be something I have to solve.
I'd say that a "get help or GTFO" kind of statement is enough if someone shows up drunk at work. Do you need to do more than that?
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#123 Sep 08 2011 at 12:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,611 posts
Yes and no. According to labour laws, I usually don't even need to do that. According to Human Rights laws, I have to allow them time off to seek help, and then give them another chance when they're done. I can't discipline them for anything they've done while drunk (like telling a customer to @#%^ off). In some cases, I'd need to actually seek the help for them, possibly even pay them while they're off work, and in some case,s possibly even pay for the help should there be a cost with it. it varies from province to Province and sometimes, it can get quite ridiculous. I mean, I can fire them on the spot if I want to, but there is the possibility for legal recourse on their behalf, should they be smart enough to follow that course of action.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#124 Sep 08 2011 at 1:42 PM Rating: Excellent
The human rights tribunal in Canada is a travesty.

Edited, Sep 8th 2011 2:42pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#125 Sep 08 2011 at 1:54 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
25,526 posts
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
Yes and no. According to labour laws, I usually don't even need to do that. According to Human Rights laws, I have to allow them time off to seek help, and then give them another chance when they're done. I can't discipline them for anything they've done while drunk (like telling a customer to @#%^ off). In some cases, I'd need to actually seek the help for them, possibly even pay them while they're off work, and in some case,s possibly even pay for the help should there be a cost with it. it varies from province to Province and sometimes, it can get quite ridiculous. I mean, I can fire them on the spot if I want to, but there is the possibility for legal recourse on their behalf, should they be smart enough to follow that course of action.
Whoah... that's a bit too much.
I mean, telling them to get help or GTFO makes sense, having to give them another chance if they come back after getting help I'm all for as well, paying sick leave or something while they're getting treated I can understand as well but paying for their treatment and not being able to hold them responsible for their deeds while they show up to work drunk is just... @#%^ that.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#126 Sep 08 2011 at 2:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,367 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
The human rights tribunal in Canada is a travesty.

Edited, Sep 8th 2011 2:42pm by Xsarus


Canada is weird.

I walk down the streets in the middle of the day and normal-looking people come up and ask me if I want to buy some pot. I politely decline, and they tell me to have a nice day.

Weird.

Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#127 Sep 08 2011 at 2:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Some university students in Vancouver started a grow-op, and used the profits to buy equipment for their lab. When they were busted, the head cop commended them on their initiative.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#128 Sep 08 2011 at 2:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,367 posts
Can you people get in trouble for anything up there?

Linky

Smiley: oyvey

Edited, Sep 8th 2011 1:16pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#129 Sep 08 2011 at 2:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,611 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Can you people get in trouble for anything up there?

Linky

Smiley: oyvey

Edited, Sep 8th 2011 1:16pm by someproteinguy

Firing a drunk
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#130 Sep 08 2011 at 2:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Well the current government is trying to turn our justice system into one that sends people to jail for everything.

To be fair, for the human rights stuff if you have enough backing to get lawyers and get the case sent to a real court, you'll usually be fine, but for most people taken to the HRT, they either don't have the resources, or it's not worth the hassle.

Edited, Sep 8th 2011 3:49pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#131 Sep 08 2011 at 3:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,226 posts
That's just crazy, haha. I didn't realize it was like that in Canada. In most places in the States, you even *act* like you're drunk and you can get canned. Most states here are at-will employment which means you can be fired at any time for (almost) any reason, and your employer doesn't even have to tell you why.
#132 Sep 08 2011 at 3:38 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,611 posts
We have probationary periods where as an employer, you don't need a reason (although if it's based on anything other than employment issues, Hello Human Rights!). After the probationary period, you need to prove there's an issue and show steps to curtail it. We use a 3 strike rule at our company. Verbal warning, written warning, suspension/termination. Typically, these need to be completely different issues. Showing up late and getting a verbal warning doesn't mean you can move to written warning because someone didn't complete a job responsibility.

Of course, you can always fire someone for whatever you want, you just run the risk of them fighting you in court if you didn't follow the proper steps. Most employees actually don't know the full extent of their rights.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#133 Sep 08 2011 at 5:02 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,033 posts
Yeah, that is the thing - most employees have no idea what their rights are (or could be) so this doesn't affect as many businesses as it might otherwise.

And to be fair, a lot of companies break the rules:

http://www.vancouversun.com/Mistreated+tree+planters+still+unpaid+lawyer+says/5132276/story.html

The company broke all the rules, and never even paid the workers. Case still not closed.

Heck, I've been fired without cause before, but I simply demanded some severance (got it) and went on my way. They were horrible to work for anyway (I was using grease trap gloves to change hot fry oil that a had a HOLE in them for months! I asked day after day for proper safety equipment - I don't think it is unreasonable for me to ask for proper gloves to handle life threateningly hot oil)

As for those snot-nosed, spoiled street racers they should be the first ones thrown in Harper's new slammers.



Edited, Sep 8th 2011 4:05pm by Olorinus
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#134 Sep 09 2011 at 4:14 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,886 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
Yes and no. According to labour laws, I usually don't even need to do that. According to Human Rights laws, I have to allow them time off to seek help, and then give them another chance when they're done. I can't discipline them for anything they've done while drunk (like telling a customer to @#%^ off). In some cases, I'd need to actually seek the help for them, possibly even pay them while they're off work, and in some case,s possibly even pay for the help should there be a cost with it. it varies from province to Province and sometimes, it can get quite ridiculous. I mean, I can fire them on the spot if I want to, but there is the possibility for legal recourse on their behalf, should they be smart enough to follow that course of action.
Whoah... that's a bit too much.
I mean, telling them to get help or GTFO makes sense, having to give them another chance if they come back after getting help I'm all for as well, paying sick leave or something while they're getting treated I can understand as well but paying for their treatment and not being able to hold them responsible for their deeds while they show up to work drunk is just... @#%^ that.
I'm with Aethien on this one. Yeech.

Sir Xsarus wrote:
Some university students in Vancouver started a grow-op, and used the profits to buy equipment for their lab. When they were busted, the head cop commended them on their initiative.

ROFL.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#135 Sep 09 2011 at 11:25 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
The human rights tribunal in Canada is a travesty.

Edited, Sep 8th 2011 2:42pm by Xsarus


Canada is weird.

I walk down the streets in the middle of the day and normal-looking people come up and ask me if I want to buy some pot. I politely decline, and they tell me to have a nice day.

Weird.

Smiley: rolleyes


Any Canadians up there wanna house BT and me? It sounds like Iowa but you don't have to give up smoking pot if you're busted with it. I'm down. Or, up.
1 2 3 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 58 All times are in CDT