Argus Posted June 15, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 15, 2012 You don't just suck at math,stopstaaron.... You just suck.... What's wrong with sucking? Are you making an anti-gay slur here? Or maybe a misogynistic anti-female slur!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 What's wrong with sucking? Are you making an anti-gay slur here? Or maybe a misogynistic anti-female slur!? I also could be making fun of a pump of any kind... Perhaps I'm "mechanophobic"? But...Nope...This guy just sucks...Just like the Argos... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 Argus brings at least something to the table in arguments.. Your bringing a bucket load of self-loathing and an Ant-am love affair.... Take it out-side.. Its creeping me out Game on! I also could be making fun of a pump of any kind... Perhaps I'm "mechanophobic"? But...Nope...This guy just sucks...Just like the Argos... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 Argus brings at least something to the table in arguments.. Your bringing a bucket load of self-loathing and an Ant-am love affair.... Take it out-side.. Its creeping me out Game on! Huh? Speak English please... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 Are you a Jewish millionaire? if not, I wouldn't worry about it You're out of line. Reported. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 How is his screen name offensive? If it's offensive to anyone, it's offensive to Canadians - not Pakistanis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 16, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 (edited) You're out of line. Reported. Would rule did he break, mommy? Edited June 16, 2012 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 16, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 If it's offensive to anyone, it's offensive to Canadians - not Pakistanis. It is not against the rules to offend people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anti-Am Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 It is not against the rules to offend people. what else is there to expect from left wingers their hobby is reporting people Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoDucks Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 what else is there to expect from left wingers their hobby is reporting people Just like hyperbole, bluster and general asshatery is to be expected from the right? Come on now, play nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 what else is there to expect from left wingers their hobby is reporting people Insults levelled at third-parties (companies, political parties, nationalities) are also political parties, nationalities) are also forbidden in the forums. I'm pretty sure racial and ethnic slurs are also forbidden by the rules of the forum, but I'll await moderator judgement on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) They hired themselves? Almost every employee is hired by a relatively low-wage worker, usuially in a support-manager role. Edited June 19, 2012 by bleeding heart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) To add...you can also get this thing called a raise if your productivity improves. Since we're talking about McDonalds...that's not really how it works. Same with Walmart. You get a token raise once a year...usually even if you don't deserve it...which also means that those who definitely deserve more, are treated the same as the layabouts. It's practically a communist system in terms of merit and motivation. Edited June 19, 2012 by bleeding heart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 Remember that when talking about the top 10% we're not talking about the wealthy here. I think the cutoff point for the top ten percent is if you earn about $120,000 a year. That's about right, I think. You believe that only 90% of the population are "pukes" who aren't pulling their weight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 It's more of a cliche than ethnic slur It's both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 Since we're talking about McDonalds...that's not really how it works. Same with Walmart. You get a token raise once a year...usually even if you don't deserve it...which also means that those who definitely deserve more, are treated the same as the layabouts. It's practically a communist system in terms of merit and motivation. That's not true.Walmart doesn't like talking about it, but they and other retailers work on a quota system. If they have a scale with "below expectations," "meets expectations," "exceeds expectations," then the company figures out the raises within that paradigm. "Below expectation" get nothing and are usually put on some sort of performance improvement plan. "Meets expectations" will generally receive a raise around 2% (give or take 1%). "Exceeds expectations" will be above the "meets expectations" raises, typically 3%-4%. So you don't always get that token raise. I know this for a fact. But here's what I mean about the token raises. Each store is given a budget based on its sales and forecasts. During any given review cycle they will tell the store that only 5% of the reviews can be "exceeds," 10% of the reviews need to be "below" and 85% need to be in the "meet" category. So it is based on performance to some extent, but you're in competition with your coworkers for the number of "good" reviews that are predetermined. The problem amongst all of this, of course, is that there's politicking in every job. Managers play favourites, so it's not always based on actual performance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 Either way, your point stands that it's not really about productivity. It's about expenses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) That's not true. Walmart doesn't like talking about it, but they and other retailers work on a quota system. If they have a scale with "below expectations," "meets expectations," "exceeds expectations," then the company figures out the raises within that paradigm. "Below expectation" get nothing and are usually put on some sort of performance improvement plan. "Meets expectations" will generally receive a raise around 2% (give or take 1%). "Exceeds expectations" will be above the "meets expectations" raises, typically 3%-4%. So you don't always get that token raise. I know this for a fact. But here's what I mean about the token raises. Each store is given a budget based on its sales and forecasts. During any given review cycle they will tell the store that only 5% of the reviews can be "exceeds," 10% of the reviews need to be "below" and 85% need to be in the "meet" category. So it is based on performance to some extent, but you're in competition with your coworkers for the number of "good" reviews that are predetermined. The problem amongst all of this, of course, is that there's politicking in every job. Managers play favourites, so it's not always based on actual performance. I know it for a fact too, based on my direct experience of working there for three years. With very few exceptions, everyone got a raise yearly. (Mostly deserved, in my opinion, but not for the precise reasons they might assess it at a corporate level...and they're class warriors, the upper echelons, make no mistake.) You could get a twenty cent, thirty cent, or fifty cent raise/hr. fifty cent raises were exceedingly rare. Almost vanishingly rare. Not deserved? Please. Twenty cents was slightly more common. But most people got a thirty cent raise...for, as I said, wildly divergent amounts and quality of work performed. Yes, i have no doubt managerial favouritism plays a part (and we're all human after all); but if anything, I suspect that my very good, very affable and decent manager recognized the utter futility of accurately measuring "merit" (a fool's game...a frigging joke, actually)...and so perhaps thought doling out the medium-sized raises almost uniformly was actually the fairest, most rational way to proceed. And given that the entire framework is one of near-lunacy, I think she was right. (I'm thinking particularly of your very good point about artifical benchmarks that are set up...it's preposterous nonsense, of course.) During any given review cycle they will tell the store that only 5% of the reviews can be "exceeds," 10% of the reviews need to be "below" and 85% need to be in the "meet" category. So it is based on performance to some extent, but you're in competition with your coworkers for the number of "good" reviews that are predetermined. The problem amongst all of this, of course, is that there's politicking in every job. Well, not quite: it's "the problem" only within the lunatic parameters that hve been set up. Because to proclaim, as company policy, the 10%--85%--5% "rule" is to deterime ahead of time that "merit" is not real, but is based on profit projections. So it's artificial. Edited June 20, 2012 by bleeding heart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 19, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 That's about right, I think. You believe that only 90% of the population are "pukes" who aren't pulling their weight. Yeah! And I am pulling more than mine! So I should be recognized with an official title, and maybe have the little people bow to me when they pass me on the street (not that I generally walk on the street since that's for poor people. I ride). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) I know it for a fact too, based on my direct experience of working there for three years. With very few exceptions, everyone got a raise yearly. (Mostly deserved, in my opinion, but not for the precise reasons they might assess it at a corporate level...and they're class warriors, the upper echelons, make no mistake.) You could get a twenty cent, thirty cent, or fifty cent raise/hr. fifty cent raises were exceedingly rare. Almost vanishingly rare. Not deserved? Please. Twenty cents was slightly more common. But most people got a thirty cent raise...for, as I said, wildly divergent amounts and quality of work performed. Yes, i have no doubt managerial favouritism plays a part (and we're all human after all); but if anything, I suspect that my very good, very affable and decent manager recognized the utter futility of accurately measuring "merit" (a fool's game...a frigging joke, actually)...and so perhaps thought doling out the medium-sized raises almost uniformly was actually the fairest, most rational way to proceed. And given that the entire framework is one of near-lunacy, I think she was right. (I'm thinking particularly of your very good point about artifical benchmarks that are set up...it's preposterous nonsense, of course.) Are you trying to say that the non union "meritocracy" and the individual workers "freedom" arguement is....I dunno.... Farcical?...Free Marketeering Bizarro World?? Edited June 19, 2012 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 Yeah! And I am pulling more than mine! So I should be recognized with an official title, and maybe have the little people bow to me when they pass me on the street (not that I generally walk on the street since that's for poor people. I ride). Oh, you do have a title, but I'm afraid it so far remains unofficial, albeit universally agreed-upon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 Are you trying to say that the non union "meritocracy" and the individual workers "freedom" arguement is....I dunno.... Farcical?...Free Marketeering Bizarro World?? Heavens, no. I have been informed, here on this board, by (at least) three different posters, that the "free market" by definition is rational, fair and based on merit. All your critiques and attacks on such genius are tantamount to attacks on religious belief, and so are against forum rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westguy Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 Nope - the 10% should be paying homage to the 75% for helping them make all that money. They got rich off the efforts of the 75%. OR their hard work and ingenuity Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 Are you trying to say that the non union "meritocracy" and the individual workers "freedom" arguement is....I dunno.... Farcical?...Free Marketeering Bizarro World?? Keep in mind if you make ten dollars an hour, you need a 30 cent raise each year for your pay just to stay the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckistani Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 OR their hard work and ingenuity Is it your contention that the rich produced their wealth all on their own, not by taking a cut of the labor of others? Maybe the odd inventor did that and then just sold their idea, but that's not the norm for how people get rich. Even then, that inventor benefited from the structure of our society: his education, the fact that a system exists and is maintained that makes his invention valuable, etc etc. We don't exist in isolation, but in an interdependent society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.