Since this joint is still off-topic for the most part...
 

NotNow wrote:
Just wait a frekin' minute! wrote:
NotNow wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"H the K" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"H the K" wrote in message
m...
You also need to run a records check and insist upon a urine test.

I wouldn't waste the time or money.

Eisboch

Sure...go ahead...hire someone with a criminal record who also
abuses drugs.

:)


I've never done that. One thing nice about a small, privately held
business is that you can hire who you want and, if necessary, fire
who you want without going through an act of congress to do so.
In my experience, I've either directly hired or at least approved
the hiring of probably about 200 people between two companies. Of
those, only 3 had to be terminated later. One was a perpetual
trouble maker on the shop floor who constantly caused problems with
others. One was caught seriously fudging expense reports and
bragging about it to others in the company. The third was a thief.

That's not a bad track record.

Eisboch


Oh hell, now Harry thinks that anyone anybody hires has a criminal
record and abuses drugs. WAFA.

Well, at least if they are not in the Union;) Pfffttt. I used to see
the windows glowing in the van where the top (union) boys smoked
cocaine every day during lunch... Man, these guys weren't worth a
nickel an hour...

What was the name of that newsreader that Tom tried on Gene's
suggestion? I need to be able to filter WAFA's bull**** that everyone is
quoting.


"Gravity"

http://mpgravity.sourceforge.net/

Since this joint is still off-topic for the most part...
 

H the K wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"H the K" wrote in message
m...
Actually, if you don't run tests and check backgrounds, you simply
don't know if you've hired a druggie or a thief, do you?



sigh Some of us take responsibility for our decisions. If proven
wrong, we accept our misjudgment.

Eisboch


You are skirting the "factuality" of the statement.


Am I the only one who sees the irony of Harry making that statement?

--
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq.

This Newsgroup post is a natural product. The slight variations in
spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in
no way are to be considered flaws or defects

Since this joint is still off-topic for the most part...
 

BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"H the K" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"H the K" wrote in message
m...
You also need to run a records check and insist upon a urine test.

I wouldn't waste the time or money.

Eisboch

Sure...go ahead...hire someone with a criminal record who also
abuses drugs.

:)


I've never done that. One thing nice about a small, privately held
business is that you can hire who you want and, if necessary, fire
who you want without going through an act of congress to do so.
In my experience, I've either directly hired or at least approved the
hiring of probably about 200 people between two companies. Of
those, only 3 had to be terminated later. One was a perpetual
trouble maker on the shop floor who constantly caused problems with
others. One was caught seriously fudging expense reports and
bragging about it to others in the company. The third was a thief.

That's not a bad track record.

Eisboch


Actually, if you don't run tests and check backgrounds, you simply
don't know if you've hired a druggie or a thief, do you?

Your confidence and trust in your fellow man is astounding.

What if the guy has a union card, can he fore go the **** test and
background check?


You should quit before you fall further behind, since you don't know
anything about pre-employment or jobsite drug testing, either.



--
A wise Latina makes better decisions than a dumb elephant.

Since this joint is still off-topic for the most part...
 

"NotNow" wrote in message
...

Just wait a frekin' minute! has written similar:

What was the name of that newsreader that Tom tried on Gene's suggestion?
I need to be able to filter WAFA's bull**** that everyone is quoting.

Tell you what. I sometimes enjoy sparring with Harry as long as he isn't
calling everyone who doesn't agree with him idiots and other personal
insults.

But with respect to your desire to keep him in your Bozo bin, I will make
an attempt to include the keyword "delete" in the subject line of any
response I may give to him.

Add that word to your filter, and you won't see any of my responses to him.

Eisboch

Since this joint is still off-topic for the most part...
 

Eisboch wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...

Just wait a frekin' minute! has written similar:

What was the name of that newsreader that Tom tried on Gene's suggestion?
I need to be able to filter WAFA's bull**** that everyone is quoting.

Tell you what. I sometimes enjoy sparring with Harry as long as he isn't
calling everyone who doesn't agree with him idiots and other personal
insults.

But with respect to your desire to keep him in your Bozo bin, I will make
an attempt to include the keyword "delete" in the subject line of any
response I may give to him.

Add that word to your filter, and you won't see any of my responses to him.

Eisboch



Priceless.


--
A wise Latina makes better decisions than a dumb elephant.

Since this joint is still off-topic for the most part...
 

Just wait a frekin' minute! wrote:
NotNow wrote:
Just wait a frekin' minute! wrote:
NotNow wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"H the K" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"H the K" wrote in message
m...
You also need to run a records check and insist upon a urine test.

I wouldn't waste the time or money.

Eisboch

Sure...go ahead...hire someone with a criminal record who also
abuses drugs.

:)


I've never done that. One thing nice about a small, privately
held business is that you can hire who you want and, if necessary,
fire who you want without going through an act of congress to do so.
In my experience, I've either directly hired or at least approved
the hiring of probably about 200 people between two companies. Of
those, only 3 had to be terminated later. One was a perpetual
trouble maker on the shop floor who constantly caused problems with
others. One was caught seriously fudging expense reports and
bragging about it to others in the company. The third was a thief.

That's not a bad track record.

Eisboch


Oh hell, now Harry thinks that anyone anybody hires has a criminal
record and abuses drugs. WAFA.

Well, at least if they are not in the Union;) Pfffttt. I used to see
the windows glowing in the van where the top (union) boys smoked
cocaine every day during lunch... Man, these guys weren't worth a
nickel an hour...

What was the name of that newsreader that Tom tried on Gene's
suggestion? I need to be able to filter WAFA's bull**** that everyone
is quoting.


"Gravity"

http://mpgravity.sourceforge.net/


Thanks, have you tried it yet?

Since this joint is still off-topic for the most part...
 

Just Regigie wrote:
H the K wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"H the K" wrote in message
m...
Actually, if you don't run tests and check backgrounds, you simply
don't know if you've hired a druggie or a thief, do you?



sigh Some of us take responsibility for our decisions. If
proven wrong, we accept our misjudgment.

Eisboch


You are skirting the "factuality" of the statement.


Am I the only one who sees the irony of Harry making that statement?


Oh, no, that's about as ironic as they come!

Since this joint is still off-topic for the most part...
 

Eisboch wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...

Just wait a frekin' minute! has written similar:

What was the name of that newsreader that Tom tried on Gene's suggestion?
I need to be able to filter WAFA's bull**** that everyone is quoting.

Tell you what. I sometimes enjoy sparring with Harry as long as he isn't
calling everyone who doesn't agree with him idiots and other personal
insults.

But with respect to your desire to keep him in your Bozo bin, I will make
an attempt to include the keyword "delete" in the subject line of any
response I may give to him.

Add that word to your filter, and you won't see any of my responses to him.

Eisboch



I'm going to try Gravity, Gene says it has better filtering capabilities
than Thunderbird. At least I don't have to see the lies, insults and
vulgarities that he originates!

Since this joint is still off-topic for the most part... delete
 

"H the K" wrote in message
m...
Eisboch wrote:
"H the K" wrote in message
m...
Actually, if you don't run tests and check backgrounds, you simply don't
know if you've hired a druggie or a thief, do you?



sigh Some of us take responsibility for our decisions. If proven
wrong, we accept our misjudgment.

Eisboch

You are skirting the "factuality" of the statement.


It doesn't matter. In a small operation, the bad apples smell quickly.

I am not in disagreement with you. It's just that it is obvious that your
experiences in life have been heavily weighed towards bigger businesses,
unions and/or the attempts to organize them.
In that size of a company the president and upper level management are
typically not involved with day to day operations and in the hiring of new
employees, other than top management.

In may case, virtually all my experience is with very small businesses,
although we dealt with large ones often as a supplier of equipment. During
my tenure as owner/president of a company, we peaked at about 70 something
employees, probably not much larger than the BOD of IBM. By that time
formal departments with department managers were in place and they were
responsible for the recruitment and hiring of people to staff their
departments.

But, we maintained a custom of having me also do a short interview, usually
during the second, follow up interview, with all prospective new employees
recommended by the respective department managers. All I really did was
give a speach about the company "team" culture. But, it gave me an
opportunity to size up who would be joining the team, from engineers to
general shop labor.

Eisboch

Since this joint is still off-topic for the most part...
 

Eisboch wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...

Just wait a frekin' minute! has written similar:

What was the name of that newsreader that Tom tried on Gene's suggestion?
I need to be able to filter WAFA's bull**** that everyone is quoting.

Tell you what. I sometimes enjoy sparring with Harry as long as he isn't
calling everyone who doesn't agree with him idiots and other personal
insults.

But with respect to your desire to keep him in your Bozo bin, I will make
an attempt to include the keyword "delete" in the subject line of any
response I may give to him.

Add that word to your filter, and you won't see any of my responses to him.

Eisboch



Please don't... You shouldn't have to change your's and everyone else's
experience here for two of us. I can't speak for Loogie but I have found
that it's quick to look at the subject line and just blow through
threads I know have gone out of my interest weather WAFA is there or
not. I might even take a quick glimpse to see if it has moved to an area
of interest..

Nobody is quoting any of the direct crap anyway, so I am not seeing the
stuff I started filtering for. If you guys are responding to him it's to
somewhat legit stuff. (Harry must be behaving again, won't last long but
have at it;) and I do find myself at least reading your responses;)

If I really want to filter further, I will check out the other reader,
but for now it's smooth.