OT – Whitman Hired Illegal Worker

[Coronita]

[quote=eavesdropper][quote=flu] 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[/quote]

Work? WORK?!? Who said anything about work?

Do you realize what it’s going to cost us to hire workers that are capable of working? We’re a fledgling small business, and once the elections are over, Congress will go back to giving small businesses the finger – and a bipartisan one, at that. No, we can only afford to hire workers who are incapable of working.

This is an important distinction, flu. As the VP of Union Affairs, you’ll be expected to make those distinctions, and also handle all of the boring business stuff that the remainder of the cabal are too busy, dumb, or bored to handle. For the forseeable future, this may include changing lightbulbs. Be sure to check on the latest directive from Washington, DC, on what size and type of bulbs area approved for use.

Given enough time, we can manage to screw up the company enough to ensure that the government bails us out. Rest assured that I have consulted the latest actuarial tables and the National Enquirer horoscope column to determine the precise month and year for this, so as to have contracts drawn up guaranteeing that all company execs and board members receive their performance-based bonuses after we’ve been fired .[/quote]

Hm….On second thought… Hiring people to screw in lightbulbs could be expensive….

I mean, first we would need to hire a trainer to teach the proper way of screwing in a lightbulb.
Things that are educational in value like clockwise to tighten, counter-clockwise to loosen…Err…scratch that…I mean “righty->tighty…lefty->loosey….”

Then we would need to have someone fabricate warning label stickers per CA law to warn users that “This contents of the light bulb socket is known to made of things that the State of California deems could cause cancer”..

We would also need to make labels and stickers on the light bulb socket to warn installers that the socket contains live electricity, and that one should not stick their finger, tongue or other body parts into the socket. If we don’t, we could be sued for negligence.

We would need to hire someone else to affix these warning labels onto the socket, because you can’t have the same person screwing in the lightbulb doing the same job (union rules).

And then we would need to get workers comp insurance, just in case the sticker people slip and fall off the ladder.

And chances are, we now need to also fund 80% of a pension, provide PPO medical/dental/vision, and a company car to each person.

Hmmm… You know what. On second thought. Let’s not use lightbulbs. We’ll just buy a bunch of flashlights from China and pass them out. Since the folks we hired to screw in lightbulbs can’t be laid off, we’ll just send them home with pay while we idle the office with the lightbulb sockets. We’ll save money by not turning on those lights and using flashlights instead (forget about the salary we still have to pay the idle workers). We also might get lead and cadmium poisoning from when the batteries in the flashlights leak, but we won’t feel the full effect until years later anyway.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=flu] Hm….On second thought… Hiring people to screw in lightbulbs could be expensive….

I mean, first we would need to hire a trainer to teach the proper way of screwing in a lightbulb.
Things that are educational in value like clockwise to tighten, counter-clockwise to loosen…Err…scratch that…I mean “righty->tighty…lefty->loosey….”

Then we would need to have someone fabricate warning label stickers per CA law to warn users that “This contents of the light bulb socket is known to made of things that the State of California deems could cause cancer”..

We would also need to make labels and stickers on the light bulb socket to warn installers that the socket contains live electricity, and that one should not stick their finger, tongue or other body parts into the socket. If we don’t, we could be sued for negligence.

We would need to hire someone else to affix these warning labels onto the socket, because you can’t have the same person screwing in the lightbulb doing the same job (union rules).

And then we would need to get workers comp insurance, just in case the sticker people slip and fall off the ladder.

And chances are, we now need to also fund 80% of a pension, provide PPO medical/dental/vision, and a company car to each person.

Hmmm… You know what. On second thought. Let’s not use lightbulbs. We’ll just buy a bunch of flashlights from China and pass them out. Since the folks we hired to screw in lightbulbs can’t be laid off, we’ll just send them home with pay while we idle the office with the lightbulb sockets. We’ll save money by not turning on those lights and using flashlights instead (forget about the salary we still have to pay the idle workers). We also might get lead and cadmium poisoning from the flashlights, but we won’t feel the full effect until years later anyway.[/quote]

Can’t we just get some of those “clap on, clap off” thingys for the lights? Seriously, I don’t think light will pose much of an issue. After all, laptops and desktop monitors emit a shitload of light when 70% of your staff is playing Tetris and surfing for porn.

I am NOT pulling these figures out of my ass. The SEC has published their latest labor cost/benefit analysis report in today’s Washington Post.

BTW, flu, if you keep showing this kind of attention to detail, it will be years before we’re able to clearly demonstrate that we’re in need of a bailout by the government. We have to clearly demonstrate some mind-boggling incompetence in order to qualify for one of those. I can’t help but feel that your heart’s just not in this.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=flu] Hm….On second thought… Hiring people to screw in lightbulbs could be expensive….

I mean, first we would need to hire a trainer to teach the proper way of screwing in a lightbulb.
Things that are educational in value like clockwise to tighten, counter-clockwise to loosen…Err…scratch that…I mean “righty->tighty…lefty->loosey….”

Then we would need to have someone fabricate warning label stickers per CA law to warn users that “This contents of the light bulb socket is known to made of things that the State of California deems could cause cancer”..

We would also need to make labels and stickers on the light bulb socket to warn installers that the socket contains live electricity, and that one should not stick their finger, tongue or other body parts into the socket. If we don’t, we could be sued for negligence.

We would need to hire someone else to affix these warning labels onto the socket, because you can’t have the same person screwing in the lightbulb doing the same job (union rules).

And then we would need to get workers comp insurance, just in case the sticker people slip and fall off the ladder.

And chances are, we now need to also fund 80% of a pension, provide PPO medical/dental/vision, and a company car to each person.

Hmmm… You know what. On second thought. Let’s not use lightbulbs. We’ll just buy a bunch of flashlights from China and pass them out. Since the folks we hired to screw in lightbulbs can’t be laid off, we’ll just send them home with pay while we idle the office with the lightbulb sockets. We’ll save money by not turning on those lights and using flashlights instead (forget about the salary we still have to pay the idle workers). We also might get lead and cadmium poisoning from the flashlights, but we won’t feel the full effect until years later anyway.[/quote]

Can’t we just get some of those “clap on, clap off” thingys for the lights? Seriously, I don’t think light will pose much of an issue. After all, laptops and desktop monitors emit a shitload of light when 70% of your staff is playing Tetris and surfing for porn.

I am NOT pulling these figures out of my ass. The SEC has published their latest labor cost/benefit analysis report in today’s Washington Post.

BTW, flu, if you keep showing this kind of attention to detail, it will be years before we’re able to clearly demonstrate that we’re in need of a bailout by the government. We have to clearly demonstrate some mind-boggling incompetence in order to qualify for one of those. I can’t help but feel that your heart’s just not in this.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=flu] Hm….On second thought… Hiring people to screw in lightbulbs could be expensive….

I mean, first we would need to hire a trainer to teach the proper way of screwing in a lightbulb.
Things that are educational in value like clockwise to tighten, counter-clockwise to loosen…Err…scratch that…I mean “righty->tighty…lefty->loosey….”

Then we would need to have someone fabricate warning label stickers per CA law to warn users that “This contents of the light bulb socket is known to made of things that the State of California deems could cause cancer”..

We would also need to make labels and stickers on the light bulb socket to warn installers that the socket contains live electricity, and that one should not stick their finger, tongue or other body parts into the socket. If we don’t, we could be sued for negligence.

We would need to hire someone else to affix these warning labels onto the socket, because you can’t have the same person screwing in the lightbulb doing the same job (union rules).

And then we would need to get workers comp insurance, just in case the sticker people slip and fall off the ladder.

And chances are, we now need to also fund 80% of a pension, provide PPO medical/dental/vision, and a company car to each person.

Hmmm… You know what. On second thought. Let’s not use lightbulbs. We’ll just buy a bunch of flashlights from China and pass them out. Since the folks we hired to screw in lightbulbs can’t be laid off, we’ll just send them home with pay while we idle the office with the lightbulb sockets. We’ll save money by not turning on those lights and using flashlights instead (forget about the salary we still have to pay the idle workers). We also might get lead and cadmium poisoning from the flashlights, but we won’t feel the full effect until years later anyway.[/quote]

Can’t we just get some of those “clap on, clap off” thingys for the lights? Seriously, I don’t think light will pose much of an issue. After all, laptops and desktop monitors emit a shitload of light when 70% of your staff is playing Tetris and surfing for porn.

I am NOT pulling these figures out of my ass. The SEC has published their latest labor cost/benefit analysis report in today’s Washington Post.

BTW, flu, if you keep showing this kind of attention to detail, it will be years before we’re able to clearly demonstrate that we’re in need of a bailout by the government. We have to clearly demonstrate some mind-boggling incompetence in order to qualify for one of those. I can’t help but feel that your heart’s just not in this.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=flu] Hm….On second thought… Hiring people to screw in lightbulbs could be expensive….

I mean, first we would need to hire a trainer to teach the proper way of screwing in a lightbulb.
Things that are educational in value like clockwise to tighten, counter-clockwise to loosen…Err…scratch that…I mean “righty->tighty…lefty->loosey….”

Then we would need to have someone fabricate warning label stickers per CA law to warn users that “This contents of the light bulb socket is known to made of things that the State of California deems could cause cancer”..

We would also need to make labels and stickers on the light bulb socket to warn installers that the socket contains live electricity, and that one should not stick their finger, tongue or other body parts into the socket. If we don’t, we could be sued for negligence.

We would need to hire someone else to affix these warning labels onto the socket, because you can’t have the same person screwing in the lightbulb doing the same job (union rules).

And then we would need to get workers comp insurance, just in case the sticker people slip and fall off the ladder.

And chances are, we now need to also fund 80% of a pension, provide PPO medical/dental/vision, and a company car to each person.

Hmmm… You know what. On second thought. Let’s not use lightbulbs. We’ll just buy a bunch of flashlights from China and pass them out. Since the folks we hired to screw in lightbulbs can’t be laid off, we’ll just send them home with pay while we idle the office with the lightbulb sockets. We’ll save money by not turning on those lights and using flashlights instead (forget about the salary we still have to pay the idle workers). We also might get lead and cadmium poisoning from the flashlights, but we won’t feel the full effect until years later anyway.[/quote]

Can’t we just get some of those “clap on, clap off” thingys for the lights? Seriously, I don’t think light will pose much of an issue. After all, laptops and desktop monitors emit a shitload of light when 70% of your staff is playing Tetris and surfing for porn.

I am NOT pulling these figures out of my ass. The SEC has published their latest labor cost/benefit analysis report in today’s Washington Post.

BTW, flu, if you keep showing this kind of attention to detail, it will be years before we’re able to clearly demonstrate that we’re in need of a bailout by the government. We have to clearly demonstrate some mind-boggling incompetence in order to qualify for one of those. I can’t help but feel that your heart’s just not in this.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=flu] Hm….On second thought… Hiring people to screw in lightbulbs could be expensive….

I mean, first we would need to hire a trainer to teach the proper way of screwing in a lightbulb.
Things that are educational in value like clockwise to tighten, counter-clockwise to loosen…Err…scratch that…I mean “righty->tighty…lefty->loosey….”

Then we would need to have someone fabricate warning label stickers per CA law to warn users that “This contents of the light bulb socket is known to made of things that the State of California deems could cause cancer”..

We would also need to make labels and stickers on the light bulb socket to warn installers that the socket contains live electricity, and that one should not stick their finger, tongue or other body parts into the socket. If we don’t, we could be sued for negligence.

We would need to hire someone else to affix these warning labels onto the socket, because you can’t have the same person screwing in the lightbulb doing the same job (union rules).

And then we would need to get workers comp insurance, just in case the sticker people slip and fall off the ladder.

And chances are, we now need to also fund 80% of a pension, provide PPO medical/dental/vision, and a company car to each person.

Hmmm… You know what. On second thought. Let’s not use lightbulbs. We’ll just buy a bunch of flashlights from China and pass them out. Since the folks we hired to screw in lightbulbs can’t be laid off, we’ll just send them home with pay while we idle the office with the lightbulb sockets. We’ll save money by not turning on those lights and using flashlights instead (forget about the salary we still have to pay the idle workers). We also might get lead and cadmium poisoning from the flashlights, but we won’t feel the full effect until years later anyway.[/quote]

Can’t we just get some of those “clap on, clap off” thingys for the lights? Seriously, I don’t think light will pose much of an issue. After all, laptops and desktop monitors emit a shitload of light when 70% of your staff is playing Tetris and surfing for porn.

I am NOT pulling these figures out of my ass. The SEC has published their latest labor cost/benefit analysis report in today’s Washington Post.

BTW, flu, if you keep showing this kind of attention to detail, it will be years before we’re able to clearly demonstrate that we’re in need of a bailout by the government. We have to clearly demonstrate some mind-boggling incompetence in order to qualify for one of those. I can’t help but feel that your heart’s just not in this.

[Coronita]

[quote=eavesdropper]
BTW, flu, if you keep showing this kind of attention to detail, it will be years before we’re able to clearly demonstrate that we’re in need of a bailout by the government. We have to clearly demonstrate some mind-boggling incompetence in order to qualify for one of those. I can’t help but feel that your heart’s just not in this.[/quote]

You got it wrong… I think what we need to do is clearly demonstrate that we’re thought about all the issues and risks and that generally we know it’s a bad idea to go down this path, as leading experts would tell us…However, after careful analysis, we then completely disregard our better judgment and do it anyway….Fed style…

[Coronita]

[quote=eavesdropper]
BTW, flu, if you keep showing this kind of attention to detail, it will be years before we’re able to clearly demonstrate that we’re in need of a bailout by the government. We have to clearly demonstrate some mind-boggling incompetence in order to qualify for one of those. I can’t help but feel that your heart’s just not in this.[/quote]

You got it wrong… I think what we need to do is clearly demonstrate that we’re thought about all the issues and risks and that generally we know it’s a bad idea to go down this path, as leading experts would tell us…However, after careful analysis, we then completely disregard our better judgment and do it anyway….Fed style…

[Coronita]

[quote=eavesdropper]
BTW, flu, if you keep showing this kind of attention to detail, it will be years before we’re able to clearly demonstrate that we’re in need of a bailout by the government. We have to clearly demonstrate some mind-boggling incompetence in order to qualify for one of those. I can’t help but feel that your heart’s just not in this.[/quote]

You got it wrong… I think what we need to do is clearly demonstrate that we’re thought about all the issues and risks and that generally we know it’s a bad idea to go down this path, as leading experts would tell us…However, after careful analysis, we then completely disregard our better judgment and do it anyway….Fed style…

[Coronita]

[quote=eavesdropper]
BTW, flu, if you keep showing this kind of attention to detail, it will be years before we’re able to clearly demonstrate that we’re in need of a bailout by the government. We have to clearly demonstrate some mind-boggling incompetence in order to qualify for one of those. I can’t help but feel that your heart’s just not in this.[/quote]

You got it wrong… I think what we need to do is clearly demonstrate that we’re thought about all the issues and risks and that generally we know it’s a bad idea to go down this path, as leading experts would tell us…However, after careful analysis, we then completely disregard our better judgment and do it anyway….Fed style…

[Coronita]

[quote=eavesdropper]
BTW, flu, if you keep showing this kind of attention to detail, it will be years before we’re able to clearly demonstrate that we’re in need of a bailout by the government. We have to clearly demonstrate some mind-boggling incompetence in order to qualify for one of those. I can’t help but feel that your heart’s just not in this.[/quote]

You got it wrong… I think what we need to do is clearly demonstrate that we’re thought about all the issues and risks and that generally we know it’s a bad idea to go down this path, as leading experts would tell us…However, after careful analysis, we then completely disregard our better judgment and do it anyway….Fed style…

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
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.
[/quote]

Point well taken.

I picked Brandeis because he was not of the establishment and he was Jewish (which was a big deal a century ago).

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
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.[/quote]

I agree.

Things such as a higher minimum wage, better minimum safety and pollution standards don’t necessarily result in bigger government.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
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.
[/quote]

Point well taken.

I picked Brandeis because he was not of the establishment and he was Jewish (which was a big deal a century ago).

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
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.[/quote]

I agree.

Things such as a higher minimum wage, better minimum safety and pollution standards don’t necessarily result in bigger government.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
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.
[/quote]

Point well taken.

I picked Brandeis because he was not of the establishment and he was Jewish (which was a big deal a century ago).

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
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.[/quote]

I agree.

Things such as a higher minimum wage, better minimum safety and pollution standards don’t necessarily result in bigger government.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
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.
[/quote]

Point well taken.

I picked Brandeis because he was not of the establishment and he was Jewish (which was a big deal a century ago).

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
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.[/quote]

I agree.

Things such as a higher minimum wage, better minimum safety and pollution standards don’t necessarily result in bigger government.

[Author]

Posts