Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 5, 2009 at 12:27 PM in reply to: Carl DeMaio – Six Figure Salaries Soar in City Workforce – Up 44% in One Year #341289February 5, 2009 at 12:27 PM in reply to: Carl DeMaio – Six Figure Salaries Soar in City Workforce – Up 44% in One Year #341614
kewp
Participant[quote=jonnycsd]
Firefighters have the best deal of all. Work typically consists of hanging out at the firehouse, maybe take the truck out and go for a run along the bay. Watch TV, cook some food. Three days a week. Once in a while there is actually a fire. Wow.
[/quote]Yeah just look at these slackers…
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/09/25/nyregion/25JUDGE.LARGE1.jpg
February 5, 2009 at 12:27 PM in reply to: Carl DeMaio – Six Figure Salaries Soar in City Workforce – Up 44% in One Year #341716Participant[quote=jonnycsd]
Firefighters have the best deal of all. Work typically consists of hanging out at the firehouse, maybe take the truck out and go for a run along the bay. Watch TV, cook some food. Three days a week. Once in a while there is actually a fire. Wow.
[/quote]Yeah just look at these slackers…
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/09/25/nyregion/25JUDGE.LARGE1.jpg
February 5, 2009 at 12:27 PM in reply to: Carl DeMaio – Six Figure Salaries Soar in City Workforce – Up 44% in One Year #341743Participant[quote=jonnycsd]
Firefighters have the best deal of all. Work typically consists of hanging out at the firehouse, maybe take the truck out and go for a run along the bay. Watch TV, cook some food. Three days a week. Once in a while there is actually a fire. Wow.
[/quote]Yeah just look at these slackers…
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/09/25/nyregion/25JUDGE.LARGE1.jpg
February 5, 2009 at 12:27 PM in reply to: Carl DeMaio – Six Figure Salaries Soar in City Workforce – Up 44% in One Year #341837Participant[quote=jonnycsd]
Firefighters have the best deal of all. Work typically consists of hanging out at the firehouse, maybe take the truck out and go for a run along the bay. Watch TV, cook some food. Three days a week. Once in a while there is actually a fire. Wow.
[/quote]Yeah just look at these slackers…
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/09/25/nyregion/25JUDGE.LARGE1.jpg
Participant[quote=DWCAP] But I still dont see any reason why we couldnt cut our way out of this mess. [/quote]
I hope you realize its all those government employees spending money on private-sector goods and services that’s keeping us afloat right now!
Participant[quote=DWCAP] But I still dont see any reason why we couldnt cut our way out of this mess. [/quote]
I hope you realize its all those government employees spending money on private-sector goods and services that’s keeping us afloat right now!
Participant[quote=DWCAP] But I still dont see any reason why we couldnt cut our way out of this mess. [/quote]
I hope you realize its all those government employees spending money on private-sector goods and services that’s keeping us afloat right now!
Participant[quote=DWCAP] But I still dont see any reason why we couldnt cut our way out of this mess. [/quote]
I hope you realize its all those government employees spending money on private-sector goods and services that’s keeping us afloat right now!
Participant[quote=DWCAP] But I still dont see any reason why we couldnt cut our way out of this mess. [/quote]
I hope you realize its all those government employees spending money on private-sector goods and services that’s keeping us afloat right now!
Participant[quote=XBoxBoy]
Kewp, do you have any information to support that? In the call the tech clearly agrees that the rate is supposed to be 0.002cents, not dollars. As a programmer, I’d be awfully suspicious that whoever programmed the software made a bug (good forbid, not sure how that could happen!) and no one has noticed. (except the poor sap calling to get his fee reduced)
[/quote]A friend of mine claimed that’s what happened; no cite, sorry.
There was no programming error, just multiple human errors. The correct billable rate is .002 dollars; the tech and the customer are both wrong.
As I’ve often discovered in life; when two people have a dispute its usually the case that both parties are wrong.
Participant[quote=XBoxBoy]
Kewp, do you have any information to support that? In the call the tech clearly agrees that the rate is supposed to be 0.002cents, not dollars. As a programmer, I’d be awfully suspicious that whoever programmed the software made a bug (good forbid, not sure how that could happen!) and no one has noticed. (except the poor sap calling to get his fee reduced)
[/quote]A friend of mine claimed that’s what happened; no cite, sorry.
There was no programming error, just multiple human errors. The correct billable rate is .002 dollars; the tech and the customer are both wrong.
As I’ve often discovered in life; when two people have a dispute its usually the case that both parties are wrong.
Participant[quote=XBoxBoy]
Kewp, do you have any information to support that? In the call the tech clearly agrees that the rate is supposed to be 0.002cents, not dollars. As a programmer, I’d be awfully suspicious that whoever programmed the software made a bug (good forbid, not sure how that could happen!) and no one has noticed. (except the poor sap calling to get his fee reduced)
[/quote]A friend of mine claimed that’s what happened; no cite, sorry.
There was no programming error, just multiple human errors. The correct billable rate is .002 dollars; the tech and the customer are both wrong.
As I’ve often discovered in life; when two people have a dispute its usually the case that both parties are wrong.
Participant[quote=XBoxBoy]
Kewp, do you have any information to support that? In the call the tech clearly agrees that the rate is supposed to be 0.002cents, not dollars. As a programmer, I’d be awfully suspicious that whoever programmed the software made a bug (good forbid, not sure how that could happen!) and no one has noticed. (except the poor sap calling to get his fee reduced)
[/quote]A friend of mine claimed that’s what happened; no cite, sorry.
There was no programming error, just multiple human errors. The correct billable rate is .002 dollars; the tech and the customer are both wrong.
As I’ve often discovered in life; when two people have a dispute its usually the case that both parties are wrong.
Participant[quote=XBoxBoy]
Kewp, do you have any information to support that? In the call the tech clearly agrees that the rate is supposed to be 0.002cents, not dollars. As a programmer, I’d be awfully suspicious that whoever programmed the software made a bug (good forbid, not sure how that could happen!) and no one has noticed. (except the poor sap calling to get his fee reduced)
[/quote]A friend of mine claimed that’s what happened; no cite, sorry.
There was no programming error, just multiple human errors. The correct billable rate is .002 dollars; the tech and the customer are both wrong.
As I’ve often discovered in life; when two people have a dispute its usually the case that both parties are wrong.
-
AuthorPosts
