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

Eisboch wrote:
"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




These days, if you are a contractor doing "sensitive work" for the DoD
and some other agencies, certain categories of employees must be tested
for substance abuse. That's also the case on federally funded
construction projects, and the trend is spreading to state-funded
projects *and* to privately funded projects where the sponsors and
contractors want a drug-free workplace.

I don't see anything wrong with the practice. If I were a construction
worker, I sure as hell wouldn't want to be working on a scaffold or on
the ground alongside workers who were "high."

Being high, of course, usually is a requirement in the pop music biz,
right?



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

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

NotNow wrote:
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?

Nope.. Like I said, most of the quoted stuff is not the stuff I was
filtering for anyway. If he starts a thread or makes a comment directly
to me, I don't see it because nobody is quoting it..

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

Just wait a frekin' minute! wrote:
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.


Obsessed asshole. As always.



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

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

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:08:27 -0400, H the K wrote:


I don't see anything wrong with the practice. If I were a construction
worker, I sure as hell wouldn't want to be working on a scaffold or on
the ground alongside workers who were "high."

Yeah, but you're not testing for someone who is high. You're testing for
illegal drug use. Smacks of Big Brother to me. By the by, alcohol
doesn't show up in a urinalysis. If I were working on a scaffold, I'd be
more concerned if the guy above me was drunk, than I would be if he had
blown a joint two weeks ago.

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

thunder wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:08:27 -0400, H the K wrote:


I don't see anything wrong with the practice. If I were a construction
worker, I sure as hell wouldn't want to be working on a scaffold or on
the ground alongside workers who were "high."

Yeah, but you're not testing for someone who is high. You're testing for
illegal drug use. Smacks of Big Brother to me. By the by, alcohol
doesn't show up in a urinalysis. If I were working on a scaffold, I'd be
more concerned if the guy above me was drunk, than I would be if he had
blown a joint two weeks ago.


Booze is a problem. You have to depend on the foreman or site safety guy
to pull the drunks off the job.

The testing problem with joints is that the residue shows up for at
least a month after use, according to what I have read. Still, I don't
have a problem with drug screening for illegal substance use. There's
nothing to prevent a user from "using" the morning he steps on the
jobsite. That makes the job a lot more dangerous.


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

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

H the K wrote:



These days, if you are a contractor doing "sensitive work" for the DoD
and some other agencies, certain categories of employees must be tested
for substance abuse. That's also the case on federally funded
construction projects, and the trend is spreading to state-funded
projects *and* to privately funded projects where the sponsors and
contractors want a drug-free workplace.

Eisboch,
Do you plan on doing any sensitive work with DoD or any federally funded
grants on guitars?

--
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... delete
 

"Just Regigie" wrote in message
...

H the K wrote:



These days, if you are a contractor doing "sensitive work" for the DoD
and some other agencies, certain categories of employees must be tested
for substance abuse. That's also the case on federally funded
construction projects, and the trend is spreading to state-funded
projects *and* to privately funded projects where the sponsors and
contractors want a drug-free workplace.



Eisboch,
Do you plan on doing any sensitive work with DoD or any federally funded
grants on guitars?



I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.

Eisboch

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

Eisboch wrote:

"Just Regigie" wrote in message
...

H the K wrote:



These days, if you are a contractor doing "sensitive work" for the
DoD and some other agencies, certain categories of employees must be
tested for substance abuse. That's also the case on federally funded
construction projects, and the trend is spreading to state-funded
projects *and* to privately funded projects where the sponsors and
contractors want a drug-free workplace.



Eisboch,
Do you plan on doing any sensitive work with DoD or any federally
funded grants on guitars?



I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.

Eisboch

Well if that is the case, I rather not know. ;)

--
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...
 

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:45:01 -0400, "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


How about just changing your 'author' name to 'delete' when you're in
a discussion with the guy?
--

John H

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

"BAR" wrote in message
...

Don is lost without you. He follows your lead.

Unlike you...who couldn't follow his superiors instructions and was left
behind when his Marine unit was sent for any serious operations out of
country.