OT – Whitman Hired Illegal Worker

[Coronita]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=eavesdropper][quote=walterwhite]You guys are making me feel bad for not actually producing anything. But at least I’m not blaming any particular group for anything. I like me life; I’m just maybe perhaps useless.[/quote]

Don’t feel bad. You keep us entertained AND informed. And we’re a tough room.

You can be the Human Resources Director at the new network. How’s that sound?[/quote]

Eavesdropper: You’re getting a little ahead of yourself here, Sunshine. Before you start handing out jobs, willy-nilly, I think we should form an executive group first. Actually, I think we should form a junta (or a cabal; I’ve always wanted to be part of a cabal) and start appointing various minions, cohorts and henchpersons.

For the record, I have no issue with Scaredy being in charge of HR, although I remain concerned about his various, changing monikers. That might presage some sort of psychotic break with reality. Although, with this group, that’s probably not a deal-breaker.[/quote]

Can I be in charge of the Worker’s Union Advocacy Group and Task Force for Fair Compensation (WUAGTFFC)? My first call to action would be to put in place the following efficient management structure to manage 5 people to do the actual work….

1 shift supervisor
1 shift supervisor’s supervisor
1 associate project manager
1 associate program manager
1 senior project manager
1 senior program manager
1 director of operations that both the senior project manager and program manager report to
I’m fine with the director of operations reporting to me.

I have no idea yet what the actual 5 people will be working on. But I’m confident that regardless of the work, we need 5 people to do the actual work, and the aforementioned efficient management team (EMT) to manage tasks such as encouraging 5 people to think of ideas of what movie/show to make, screwing in lightbulbs, etc.

Also, while we are at it, let’s schedule a meeting to discuss when we should have the next meeting to discuss how we should plan to run a business at the next meeting.

Thank you for your cooperation…

-Flu,
VP of Union Affairs

[briansd1]

[quote=eavesdropper]
Oh, and every penny we’d make, over and above production costs, would be donated to pay off the national debt. I think we’d be a cinch to succeed. But, if not, who gives a rat’s ass.[/quote]

Why would we do that? Didn’t the conservatives say that’s just a fantasy world? Unfettered personal enrichment is self-regulating, remember?

We could just use an employee stock ownership plan, (ESOP) as leverage and borrow to the hilt while putting very little down. Of course, the 401k plan contributions would be diverted to company stocks. We would then enrich ourselves with million dollar bonuses, then walk away from a bankrupt company.

That’s what happened to the Tribune Company.

[briansd1]

[quote=eavesdropper]
Oh, and every penny we’d make, over and above production costs, would be donated to pay off the national debt. I think we’d be a cinch to succeed. But, if not, who gives a rat’s ass.[/quote]

Why would we do that? Didn’t the conservatives say that’s just a fantasy world? Unfettered personal enrichment is self-regulating, remember?

We could just use an employee stock ownership plan, (ESOP) as leverage and borrow to the hilt while putting very little down. Of course, the 401k plan contributions would be diverted to company stocks. We would then enrich ourselves with million dollar bonuses, then walk away from a bankrupt company.

That’s what happened to the Tribune Company.

[briansd1]

[quote=eavesdropper]
Oh, and every penny we’d make, over and above production costs, would be donated to pay off the national debt. I think we’d be a cinch to succeed. But, if not, who gives a rat’s ass.[/quote]

Why would we do that? Didn’t the conservatives say that’s just a fantasy world? Unfettered personal enrichment is self-regulating, remember?

We could just use an employee stock ownership plan, (ESOP) as leverage and borrow to the hilt while putting very little down. Of course, the 401k plan contributions would be diverted to company stocks. We would then enrich ourselves with million dollar bonuses, then walk away from a bankrupt company.

That’s what happened to the Tribune Company.

[briansd1]

[quote=eavesdropper]
Oh, and every penny we’d make, over and above production costs, would be donated to pay off the national debt. I think we’d be a cinch to succeed. But, if not, who gives a rat’s ass.[/quote]

Why would we do that? Didn’t the conservatives say that’s just a fantasy world? Unfettered personal enrichment is self-regulating, remember?

We could just use an employee stock ownership plan, (ESOP) as leverage and borrow to the hilt while putting very little down. Of course, the 401k plan contributions would be diverted to company stocks. We would then enrich ourselves with million dollar bonuses, then walk away from a bankrupt company.

That’s what happened to the Tribune Company.

[briansd1]

[quote=eavesdropper]
Oh, and every penny we’d make, over and above production costs, would be donated to pay off the national debt. I think we’d be a cinch to succeed. But, if not, who gives a rat’s ass.[/quote]

Why would we do that? Didn’t the conservatives say that’s just a fantasy world? Unfettered personal enrichment is self-regulating, remember?

We could just use an employee stock ownership plan, (ESOP) as leverage and borrow to the hilt while putting very little down. Of course, the 401k plan contributions would be diverted to company stocks. We would then enrich ourselves with million dollar bonuses, then walk away from a bankrupt company.

That’s what happened to the Tribune Company.

[briansd1]

Allan, I do wholeheartedly agree that the two party system is dysfunctional and badly in need of an overhaul.

However, both sides are not equal. I still believe that there is a qualitative difference between the two sides.

At a time when we should be working together, one side is a maligning a good woman Elizabeth Warren, opposing the President’s community college initiative (supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation), and offering up alternatives such as Palin and O’Donnell. We’ve reached a new level of nuttiness, IMHO.

I know that you’re not a big fan of NPR or PBS. But there is a qualitative difference between public broadcasting and Fox and the private radio stations that carry Rush Limbaugh.

*

BTW, operating within the system to get rich is not anathema to being socially conscious and doing right by society. For example Louis Brandeis became a multi-millionaire but he also worked hard for social advancement.

[briansd1]

Allan, I do wholeheartedly agree that the two party system is dysfunctional and badly in need of an overhaul.

However, both sides are not equal. I still believe that there is a qualitative difference between the two sides.

At a time when we should be working together, one side is a maligning a good woman Elizabeth Warren, opposing the President’s community college initiative (supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation), and offering up alternatives such as Palin and O’Donnell. We’ve reached a new level of nuttiness, IMHO.

I know that you’re not a big fan of NPR or PBS. But there is a qualitative difference between public broadcasting and Fox and the private radio stations that carry Rush Limbaugh.

*

BTW, operating within the system to get rich is not anathema to being socially conscious and doing right by society. For example Louis Brandeis became a multi-millionaire but he also worked hard for social advancement.

[briansd1]

Allan, I do wholeheartedly agree that the two party system is dysfunctional and badly in need of an overhaul.

However, both sides are not equal. I still believe that there is a qualitative difference between the two sides.

At a time when we should be working together, one side is a maligning a good woman Elizabeth Warren, opposing the President’s community college initiative (supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation), and offering up alternatives such as Palin and O’Donnell. We’ve reached a new level of nuttiness, IMHO.

I know that you’re not a big fan of NPR or PBS. But there is a qualitative difference between public broadcasting and Fox and the private radio stations that carry Rush Limbaugh.

*

BTW, operating within the system to get rich is not anathema to being socially conscious and doing right by society. For example Louis Brandeis became a multi-millionaire but he also worked hard for social advancement.

[briansd1]

Allan, I do wholeheartedly agree that the two party system is dysfunctional and badly in need of an overhaul.

However, both sides are not equal. I still believe that there is a qualitative difference between the two sides.

At a time when we should be working together, one side is a maligning a good woman Elizabeth Warren, opposing the President’s community college initiative (supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation), and offering up alternatives such as Palin and O’Donnell. We’ve reached a new level of nuttiness, IMHO.

I know that you’re not a big fan of NPR or PBS. But there is a qualitative difference between public broadcasting and Fox and the private radio stations that carry Rush Limbaugh.

*

BTW, operating within the system to get rich is not anathema to being socially conscious and doing right by society. For example Louis Brandeis became a multi-millionaire but he also worked hard for social advancement.

[briansd1]

Allan, I do wholeheartedly agree that the two party system is dysfunctional and badly in need of an overhaul.

However, both sides are not equal. I still believe that there is a qualitative difference between the two sides.

At a time when we should be working together, one side is a maligning a good woman Elizabeth Warren, opposing the President’s community college initiative (supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation), and offering up alternatives such as Palin and O’Donnell. We’ve reached a new level of nuttiness, IMHO.

I know that you’re not a big fan of NPR or PBS. But there is a qualitative difference between public broadcasting and Fox and the private radio stations that carry Rush Limbaugh.

*

BTW, operating within the system to get rich is not anathema to being socially conscious and doing right by society. For example Louis Brandeis became a multi-millionaire but he also worked hard for social advancement.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]Allan, I do wholeheartedly agree that the two party system is dysfunctional and badly in need of an overhaul.

However, both sides are not equal. I still believe that there is a qualitative difference between the two sides.

At a time when we should be working together, one side is a maligning a good woman Elizabeth Warren, opposing the President’s community college initiative (supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation), and offering up alternatives such as Palin and O’Donnell. We’ve reached a new level of nuttiness, IMHO.

I know that you’re not a big fan of NPR or PBS. But there is a qualitative difference between public broadcasting and Fox and the private radio stations that carry Rush Limbaugh.

*

BTW, operating within the system to get rich is not anathema to being socially conscious and doing right by society. For example Louis Brandeis became a multi-millionaire but he also worked hard for social advancement.[/quote]

Brian: Are you assuming that, since I’m a conservaitve, I don’t like NPR and PBS, or have I come out in the past and said that? I don’t recall ever saying that, and I do like NPR and PBS, if for no other reason than they offer an intelligent (for the most part) counterpoint to some of my beliefs.

And, I have no issue with Pelosi’s money, in the same way that I have no issue with Whitman’s. No, my point is that Nancy Pelosi is a hypocrite, in that she espouses support for unions, immigration reform and environmental causes and then turns around and engages in personal behavior that is the exact opposite of her stated position.

As far as Brandeis, or Carnegie, or Morgan, or Stanford or any other members of the All-American Plutocrats League go: I don’t doubt that one can do well by doing good. We’ll have to overlook the racism, anti-Semitism, nativism, etc of those dudes, but there’s no getting around the social good they performed.

There is a huge difference between SMALLER government and NO government. I’m all for the former, not the latter. It comes down to what we can truly afford and what is truly necessary. I’d also draw your attention to the upcoming Swedish elections and what that election means for the “Swedish Model”, long held by the left to be the world standard for a balanced socialist system. The Swedes, along with the Danes, Finns and Norwegians, are realizing that this type of model is unsustainable and are moving towards a center-right system of government. So what you’re seeing is a realization, from countries far to the left of the US, that the model is unsustainable and change is inevitable.

The same argument holds for the US, too. Smaller, more effective and more affordable government. Not the complete elimination of government, mind you, just one that we can afford and one that works in the best interests of the citizens footing the bill.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]Allan, I do wholeheartedly agree that the two party system is dysfunctional and badly in need of an overhaul.

However, both sides are not equal. I still believe that there is a qualitative difference between the two sides.

At a time when we should be working together, one side is a maligning a good woman Elizabeth Warren, opposing the President’s community college initiative (supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation), and offering up alternatives such as Palin and O’Donnell. We’ve reached a new level of nuttiness, IMHO.

I know that you’re not a big fan of NPR or PBS. But there is a qualitative difference between public broadcasting and Fox and the private radio stations that carry Rush Limbaugh.

*

BTW, operating within the system to get rich is not anathema to being socially conscious and doing right by society. For example Louis Brandeis became a multi-millionaire but he also worked hard for social advancement.[/quote]

Brian: Are you assuming that, since I’m a conservaitve, I don’t like NPR and PBS, or have I come out in the past and said that? I don’t recall ever saying that, and I do like NPR and PBS, if for no other reason than they offer an intelligent (for the most part) counterpoint to some of my beliefs.

And, I have no issue with Pelosi’s money, in the same way that I have no issue with Whitman’s. No, my point is that Nancy Pelosi is a hypocrite, in that she espouses support for unions, immigration reform and environmental causes and then turns around and engages in personal behavior that is the exact opposite of her stated position.

As far as Brandeis, or Carnegie, or Morgan, or Stanford or any other members of the All-American Plutocrats League go: I don’t doubt that one can do well by doing good. We’ll have to overlook the racism, anti-Semitism, nativism, etc of those dudes, but there’s no getting around the social good they performed.

There is a huge difference between SMALLER government and NO government. I’m all for the former, not the latter. It comes down to what we can truly afford and what is truly necessary. I’d also draw your attention to the upcoming Swedish elections and what that election means for the “Swedish Model”, long held by the left to be the world standard for a balanced socialist system. The Swedes, along with the Danes, Finns and Norwegians, are realizing that this type of model is unsustainable and are moving towards a center-right system of government. So what you’re seeing is a realization, from countries far to the left of the US, that the model is unsustainable and change is inevitable.

The same argument holds for the US, too. Smaller, more effective and more affordable government. Not the complete elimination of government, mind you, just one that we can afford and one that works in the best interests of the citizens footing the bill.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]Allan, I do wholeheartedly agree that the two party system is dysfunctional and badly in need of an overhaul.

However, both sides are not equal. I still believe that there is a qualitative difference between the two sides.

At a time when we should be working together, one side is a maligning a good woman Elizabeth Warren, opposing the President’s community college initiative (supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation), and offering up alternatives such as Palin and O’Donnell. We’ve reached a new level of nuttiness, IMHO.

I know that you’re not a big fan of NPR or PBS. But there is a qualitative difference between public broadcasting and Fox and the private radio stations that carry Rush Limbaugh.

*

BTW, operating within the system to get rich is not anathema to being socially conscious and doing right by society. For example Louis Brandeis became a multi-millionaire but he also worked hard for social advancement.[/quote]

Brian: Are you assuming that, since I’m a conservaitve, I don’t like NPR and PBS, or have I come out in the past and said that? I don’t recall ever saying that, and I do like NPR and PBS, if for no other reason than they offer an intelligent (for the most part) counterpoint to some of my beliefs.

And, I have no issue with Pelosi’s money, in the same way that I have no issue with Whitman’s. No, my point is that Nancy Pelosi is a hypocrite, in that she espouses support for unions, immigration reform and environmental causes and then turns around and engages in personal behavior that is the exact opposite of her stated position.

As far as Brandeis, or Carnegie, or Morgan, or Stanford or any other members of the All-American Plutocrats League go: I don’t doubt that one can do well by doing good. We’ll have to overlook the racism, anti-Semitism, nativism, etc of those dudes, but there’s no getting around the social good they performed.

There is a huge difference between SMALLER government and NO government. I’m all for the former, not the latter. It comes down to what we can truly afford and what is truly necessary. I’d also draw your attention to the upcoming Swedish elections and what that election means for the “Swedish Model”, long held by the left to be the world standard for a balanced socialist system. The Swedes, along with the Danes, Finns and Norwegians, are realizing that this type of model is unsustainable and are moving towards a center-right system of government. So what you’re seeing is a realization, from countries far to the left of the US, that the model is unsustainable and change is inevitable.

The same argument holds for the US, too. Smaller, more effective and more affordable government. Not the complete elimination of government, mind you, just one that we can afford and one that works in the best interests of the citizens footing the bill.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]Allan, I do wholeheartedly agree that the two party system is dysfunctional and badly in need of an overhaul.

However, both sides are not equal. I still believe that there is a qualitative difference between the two sides.

At a time when we should be working together, one side is a maligning a good woman Elizabeth Warren, opposing the President’s community college initiative (supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation), and offering up alternatives such as Palin and O’Donnell. We’ve reached a new level of nuttiness, IMHO.

I know that you’re not a big fan of NPR or PBS. But there is a qualitative difference between public broadcasting and Fox and the private radio stations that carry Rush Limbaugh.

*

BTW, operating within the system to get rich is not anathema to being socially conscious and doing right by society. For example Louis Brandeis became a multi-millionaire but he also worked hard for social advancement.[/quote]

Brian: Are you assuming that, since I’m a conservaitve, I don’t like NPR and PBS, or have I come out in the past and said that? I don’t recall ever saying that, and I do like NPR and PBS, if for no other reason than they offer an intelligent (for the most part) counterpoint to some of my beliefs.

And, I have no issue with Pelosi’s money, in the same way that I have no issue with Whitman’s. No, my point is that Nancy Pelosi is a hypocrite, in that she espouses support for unions, immigration reform and environmental causes and then turns around and engages in personal behavior that is the exact opposite of her stated position.

As far as Brandeis, or Carnegie, or Morgan, or Stanford or any other members of the All-American Plutocrats League go: I don’t doubt that one can do well by doing good. We’ll have to overlook the racism, anti-Semitism, nativism, etc of those dudes, but there’s no getting around the social good they performed.

There is a huge difference between SMALLER government and NO government. I’m all for the former, not the latter. It comes down to what we can truly afford and what is truly necessary. I’d also draw your attention to the upcoming Swedish elections and what that election means for the “Swedish Model”, long held by the left to be the world standard for a balanced socialist system. The Swedes, along with the Danes, Finns and Norwegians, are realizing that this type of model is unsustainable and are moving towards a center-right system of government. So what you’re seeing is a realization, from countries far to the left of the US, that the model is unsustainable and change is inevitable.

The same argument holds for the US, too. Smaller, more effective and more affordable government. Not the complete elimination of government, mind you, just one that we can afford and one that works in the best interests of the citizens footing the bill.

[Author]

Posts