"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
Let's say, for the sake of argument, it's a non-skilled job like in a
fastfood place. Anyone without skills would want the job, so there's a
waiting list of applicants. The boss is a grabber with female employees
(let's assume for the sake of this discussion that this behavior is
"legal" even though it isn't). Are you claiming that the "solution" is
for the female employee to quit? Or, is it more reasonable for the boss
to be held accountable for his actions? I believe the latter is more
reasonable. If the boss actually treats his employees with respect,
then no one needs to be held accountable, no action is necessary, no
union is needed.

You are making things much too complicated for your mind to deal with,
using your scenarios and suppositions.

I'll lay it out real simply so you and Krause can understand. When times
are tough, people on all strata are unemployed and even car wash
managers are having a rough time making ends meet, advantage goes to
employer who is tasked with keeping his business afloat so that there
will be a place to work when times get better. On the other side of the
coin, when times are good, business is booming, employees are in short
supply, advantage goes to employee until a threshold is reached where
the employer cannot bend to the employees demands and the business is in
jeopardy. So long as the employee doesn't get too greedy everyone wins.
This works pretty well until The "I've got mine screw everyone else
liberal" dweebs stick their noses into it.


You are not only rude but wrong. I just love it... "if the employee
doesn't get too greedy" and "employee demands" .. how about substituting
employer for employee and get back to me when you can speak in a civil
tongue.

wellll excuseee meeee.


If you were actually excusing yourself, I would acknowledge it and that
would be the end of it, but clearly you're not doing that.

I also note that you haven't done the substitution of the words.

--
Nom=de=Plume