Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

shadowfyr · 11-03-2004, 09:19 PM

Ok. Not to be picky or anything, but you can't claim that it is acceptable to interfere in any way if a company infringes on someone else's rights, then claim that interference is not justified. That is why it isn't a supportable position. If this isn't what you meant, then try to do what politicians constanly fail at and mare clear statements, instead of blanket statementst that contradict themselves.

I think the second is questionable because it implies the ability to act arbitrarilly. You want questions - What if the money lost would have been 50 times as much if they didn't do it, but the board doesn't want to hear that? What if the problem avoided was morally reprehensible, but the board didn't even know it was happening and the person that informs them lies, so they refuse to even hear the explainations? And so on. People that are completely focused on their own cause rarely if ever pay attention to people telling them things they don't want to hear and the customers, even if they find out, don't have a way to vote the board out of office, or necessarilly have other options. What for example do you do as a customer if the local phone company lies to you or acts inappropriately, but you are not living in some big city where you can simply switch over to someone else? Cable companies are a bit like that already. You 'may' have an option for someone else or you might not, but most options cut you off from the local programs you didn't want to lose and the cable companies have fought tooth and nail to prevent that option from ever being available through anyone else.

And yeah, companies problem have internal checks and balances in many cases. Maybe I ma just unlucky and have worked at -

1. One that I got fired because they believed one lady that hated my mother, but didn't bother to actually talk to my supervisor. Didn't find this out until months later and this was a K-Mart, so you would 'think' it would have some decent corporate policies.

2. One whose owner's own kids stoled millions from (and nearly bankrupted), lost their only computer tech by ****ing him off (he left with all the passwords and source code, so the system couldn't even boot) and had no internal policies for doing anything in a rational fashion, let alone wit thought for cost or actual expertise. After firing the entire staff in the weld shop, to save money, the one guy still there used up all the materials available (much of it for his own personal profit), didn't reorder and now they are spending 2-3 times as much to contract out to the same people they fired to save them money.

3. One whose attitude about workers was, "We can replace you, so don't even complain about anything. And by the way, I want you to load that trailer over there that was last shipping pesticides, even though it isn't washed out, I am going to go have a $500 lunch now, have fun." It took ten minutes for someone to explain to the idiot that it wasn't legal to have someone load the trailer.

4. There is the one someone else worked at, who thought it was a great idea to call in two employees on their day off and have them pull all the funiture out of the store to save it from the sprinkler system. This was without overtime or any pay *and* they where told, "Do this or else you are fired."

Maybe I just have horribly bad luck, but I hae yet to work anyplace that the managers didn't care more about their own asses than the employees (or even sometimes the customers) and in some cases, like the third one I mentioned, the problem went all the way up the ladder to the guy that owned the entire company and its subsidiaries. This leaves me a tad biased about just how much worse some of these palces would be if some external rules didn't exist to provide at least minimum protections for the employees. As with most things, if you never experience the level of greed, incompetence and stupidity shown by some businesses, it is a bit hard to comment on how little or much regulation is reasonable.

11-03-2004, 09:19 PM	#33
shadowfyr Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 310	Ok. Not to be picky or anything, but you can't claim that it is acceptable to interfere in any way if a company infringes on someone else's rights, then claim that interference is not justified. That is why it isn't a supportable position. If this isn't what you meant, then try to do what politicians constanly fail at and mare clear statements, instead of blanket statementst that contradict themselves. I think the second is questionable because it implies the ability to act arbitrarilly. You want questions - What if the money lost would have been 50 times as much if they didn't do it, but the board doesn't want to hear that? What if the problem avoided was morally reprehensible, but the board didn't even know it was happening and the person that informs them lies, so they refuse to even hear the explainations? And so on. People that are completely focused on their own cause rarely if ever pay attention to people telling them things they don't want to hear and the customers, even if they find out, don't have a way to vote the board out of office, or necessarilly have other options. What for example do you do as a customer if the local phone company lies to you or acts inappropriately, but you are not living in some big city where you can simply switch over to someone else? Cable companies are a bit like that already. You 'may' have an option for someone else or you might not, but most options cut you off from the local programs you didn't want to lose and the cable companies have fought tooth and nail to prevent that option from ever being available through anyone else. And yeah, companies problem have internal checks and balances in many cases. Maybe I ma just unlucky and have worked at - 1. One that I got fired because they believed one lady that hated my mother, but didn't bother to actually talk to my supervisor. Didn't find this out until months later and this was a K-Mart, so you would 'think' it would have some decent corporate policies. 2. One whose owner's own kids stoled millions from (and nearly bankrupted), lost their only computer tech by ***ing him off (he left with all the passwords and source code, so the system couldn't even boot) and had no internal policies for doing anything in a rational fashion, let alone wit thought for cost or actual expertise. After firing the entire staff in the weld shop, to save money, the one guy still there used up all the materials available (much of it for his own personal profit), didn't reorder and now they are spending 2-3 times as much to contract out to the same people they fired to save them money. 3. One whose attitude about workers was, "We can replace you, so don't even complain about anything. And by the way, I want you to load that trailer over there that was last shipping pesticides, even though it isn't washed out, I am going to go have a $500 lunch now, have fun." It took ten minutes for someone to explain to the idiot that it wasn't legal to have someone load the trailer. 4. There is the one someone else worked at, who thought it was a great idea to call in two employees on their day off and have them pull all the funiture out of the store to save it from the sprinkler system. This was without overtime or any pay and* they where told, "Do this or else you are fired." Maybe I just have horribly bad luck, but I hae yet to work anyplace that the managers didn't care more about their own asses than the employees (or even sometimes the customers) and in some cases, like the third one I mentioned, the problem went all the way up the ladder to the guy that owned the entire company and its subsidiaries. This leaves me a tad biased about just how much worse some of these palces would be if some external rules didn't exist to provide at least minimum protections for the employees. As with most things, if you never experience the level of greed, incompetence and stupidity shown by some businesses, it is a bit hard to comment on how little or much regulation is reasonable.