That is not a liberal philosophy, that is Capitalism at its best.


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Eisboch,
Gould showed us that when it is his company or his money, he is a brutal
Capitalist.

It's written somewhere that a liberal must be poor?

You and Eisboch both fail to see the fundamental liberalism in the hiring
philosophy. An employer has an obligation to create an atmosphere of
opportunity, where employees can grow and prosper.
This serves fiscal and social ends at the same time. Judge a business not
merely on how well the owner prospers, but how the employees grow and
prosper
as well.



I thought I
was a Capitalist, but I would have keep an employee if was able to do the
job he was paid to do.

Sounds like a government job. That sort of attitude will put a private
company
in the tank, especially a small one.

The guy merely doing the job he was hired to do was either mishired, (as
he has
no capacity to grow and therefore help the company at an increased level
of
responsibility), is undermotivated, or works in an environment that is not
interested in the future and well-being of the employee and does not
provide
opportunity and training for advancement.
Those are all management failures. Show me an enterprise filled with folks
merely doing "the job I was hired to do" and we'll see a stagnant or
failing
business.

I would not fire him or leave him in the roles of
unemployable just because I did not believe he could move up in the
corporation.

Ever hire anybody? That process always involves a decision to leave people
in
the ranks of the unemployed. Do you recommend that when a firm has a job
opening it should be filled with the first warm body to appear with an
application?
Failure to do so will probably leave somebody among the ranks of the
unemployed.