Gould, jps, NOYB, Jim, Harry, and a cast of thousands
 

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Still waiting...

You're in for a looooong night if you think you'll find what you're
seeking
in google...or anywhere.

If you're following this thread as it unravels, you are no longer waiting.
You
have already read your own words from last June.

....and nowhere do they support your accusation that *I* hired part-time
employees to avoid paying fringe benefits. All my employees are considered
"full-time"...and have been since I started 4 years ago.

Now I'm just "waiting" for an apology.

Gould, jps, NOYB, Jim, Harry, and a cast of thousands
 

NOYB wrote:
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Search Result 1
From: NOYB )
Subject: as in Overtime
View: Complete Thread (37 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Date: 2003-06-08 07:17:01 PST


I didn't say "temp" workers. I said "part-time" workers...someone that
may
only work 20 hours per week. A dental hygienist is a good example. That
position is not "unskilled" labor. Yet, many of 'em work less than 30
hours
per week. It's more cost effective to have two hygienists work 25 hours
per
week without benefits and OT, than pay one hygienist OT and benefits.



"noah" wrote in message
thlink.net...

"NOYB" wrote in message
m...
Nonsense. It's cheaper to bring in part-time employees that aren't
entitled
to benefits, and are usually paid less than the *regular* (non-OT) pay
received by the full time people. You obviously have little
experience in
the HR department, eh?

I had offered to let you off the hook, but you wanted to make an issue of
this
so here it is. Read it and weep.

More like "read it and giggle". Where does it say that *I* did such a
thing?

Then figure out who's spoofing your e-mail
address.

Next time, quit while you're (sort of) ahead. :-)

Granted, you stopped short of saying that you *did* what you recommend.

Nice try, Chuck! But here's what *you* asked:
"Didn't you recently post that you keep all of your employees down to 30
hours a week, or less, to avoid paying certain fringe benefits?"


And my answer to that was and is...NOPE!

Since you accused me of stating that *I* hired part-time employees in my
practice to avoid paying benefits, I'd say you owe me an apology.



You owe the civilized world an apology.

--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

Gould, jps, NOYB, Jim, Harry, and a cast of thousands
 

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

Go wade through google, Gould. I have never hired a part-time employee
to
avoid paying benefits.


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
LOL. I was expecting a zinger from you on the dental care...and, of
course, your silence about the other benefits.



But you did post that you prefer to hire two part time workers rather
than
a
full time worker, and thereby avoid paying for fringe benefits. Are you
going
to 'fess up or do I have to wade through Google? :-)







And you never went into dentistry for the money, or so you claimed, but,
then, you did, or so you claimed. Not that it makes a difference.

Not that you found that on google, either. Right?



Why would I waste time looking through your excrement on google?

--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

Gould, jps, NOYB, Jim, Harry, and a cast of thousands
 

It'd be interesting to see the names of the 1500 employers. They probably
got it from the Democratic donors list.

To all Democratic donors:
"Has the Bush Administration's ill-advised tax cut helped you to hire any
new employees? (Remember, it would really help our chances in 2004 if you
answered *no*)."





"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 21:35:29 -0400, Harry Krause

wrote:

NOYB wrote:

You're trying to disprove the theory that the Bush tax cut will create
jobs.
That's not political?




I'm not trying to prove or disprove a thing. I'm merely part of a group
trying to find legitimate evidence that the Bush tax cuts have resulted
in significant job growth among substantial manufacturing or service
employers.


By the middle of last week, some 1,500 employers have been contacted
nationally by our researchers. The data to date indicates no job growth
traceable to Bush's little giveaway.

Not to get into a discussion, Harry, but it would sure be nice to see the
questionnaire you sent those 1500 employers. Not that a questionnaire
could ever
be biased, but who knows?

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Gould, jps, NOYB, Jim, Harry, and a cast of thousands
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Search Result 1
From: NOYB )
Subject: as in Overtime
View: Complete Thread (37 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Date: 2003-06-08 07:17:01 PST


I didn't say "temp" workers. I said "part-time" workers...someone that
may
only work 20 hours per week. A dental hygienist is a good example.
That
position is not "unskilled" labor. Yet, many of 'em work less than 30
hours
per week. It's more cost effective to have two hygienists work 25
hours
per
week without benefits and OT, than pay one hygienist OT and benefits.



"noah" wrote in message
thlink.net...

"NOYB" wrote in message
m...
Nonsense. It's cheaper to bring in part-time employees that aren't
entitled
to benefits, and are usually paid less than the *regular* (non-OT)
pay
received by the full time people. You obviously have little
experience in
the HR department, eh?

I had offered to let you off the hook, but you wanted to make an issue
of
this
so here it is. Read it and weep.

More like "read it and giggle". Where does it say that *I* did such a
thing?

Then figure out who's spoofing your e-mail
address.

Next time, quit while you're (sort of) ahead. :-)

Granted, you stopped short of saying that you *did* what you recommend.

Nice try, Chuck! But here's what *you* asked:
"Didn't you recently post that you keep all of your employees down to 30
hours a week, or less, to avoid paying certain fringe benefits?"


And my answer to that was and is...NOPE!

Since you accused me of stating that *I* hired part-time employees in my
practice to avoid paying benefits, I'd say you owe me an apology.



You owe the civilized world an apology.


"Civilized" world? So it'd be OK if you didn't get one?

Gould, jps, NOYB, Jim, Harry, and a cast of thousands
 

Since you accused me of stating that *I* hired part-time employees in my
practice to avoid paying benefits, I'd say you owe me an apology.



By way of apology, I'll avoid googling up the thread where you did specifically
claim to prefer to hire people of a certain age group- too old to take off on
maternity leave and still young enough to raise you health insurance experience
rating.

Since you insist that the best practice is to hire two 25 hour workers to do 50
hours worth of work rather than hire a 40-hour person and pay overtime and
benefits, you ask us to believe that you knowingly follow the less than optimum
financial course for the welfare of your employees. That's very "liberal" of
you, Doc, you should be proud.
:-)

Gould, jps, NOYB, Jim, Harry, and a cast of thousands
 

...and nowhere do they support your accusation that *I* hired part-time
employees to avoid paying fringe benefits. All my employees are considered
"full-time"...and have been since I started 4 years ago.

Now I'm just "waiting" for an apology.


Already addressed. You claim to follow a personnel policy that differs from
what you have specifically recommended to be the most cost effective, in order
to assure full time benefits for your 32-hour per week employees. Very liberal
of you. You did say, in your reply to NOAH, that anybody who did things
otherwise didn't know much about managing human resources.

As to the hours of your employees vs the employment practices you recommend
that others follow; would have been easy enough to offer that clarification up
front, wouldn't it?

Gould, jps, NOYB, Jim, Harry, and a cast of thousands
 

No, we are in compete agreement about a few things. I too agree that no
political statements in rec.boats have any impact on the real world. I
agree that rec.boats have become a forum that is used to provoke emotion
with people you disagree.

While rec.boats might have been a good venue for discussing recreational
boats, those days are long gone. At one time the NG had experts who
contributed to the decision concerning using boats recreationally. Today,
this NG is about pinpricking people you disagree with and watching them go
ballistic.

The only thing I disagree with, is the intensity at which you attack those
who disagree with you. They either agree with you or they are right wing
trash/pig. To be honest with you, the only one I see going ballistic in the
forum is you, jps and Jim Dandy. While the right wing are just as guilty of
off topic discussion, they are much more effective at getting you to go
ballistic then you are.


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bill Cole wrote:

It is funny that while there was some name calling in the last few
weeks,
nothing to compare with the tirade that has developed since Harry
returned.
Say what you will about the right wing trash or left wing socialist, no
one
is more frustrated in his futile efforts to make an impact in the world
than
Harry.


Unlike you, Bill, I have no delusions about political statements in
rec.boats having any impact on the real world. I just refuse to engage
right-wing trash in debate on issues. There's no reason to do so...if
you mud wrestle with a right-wing pig, you're going to get covered in
garbage and excrement, because that is their only product. It's more fun
to pinprick the little suckers and watch them go ballastic.



--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

Gould, jps, NOYB, Jim, Harry, and a cast of thousands
 

"Jim" wrote in message news:I5d4b.310030$o%2.142074@sccrnsc02...
Find a real boating forum. This NG is a joke and nothing more than cheap
entertainment.

Harry, Gould, bb, jps, Jim Dandy, ignoramus and the group have turned this into nothing
more than a political chat room full of childish name calling and intolerance for
opposing opinions.

Don't blame me for what it is now. I came on board when the NG was already screwed up
thanks to the members I mentioned above. I only joined in the fun.

Email me if you want some serious boating forums.

Hmm, funny, but you don't mention anyone who posts off topic, use
childish name calling, and intolerance for opposing opinions that are
conservative/republican. Would that be YOUR intolerance for opposing
opinions?

Gould, jps, NOYB, Jim, Harry, and a cast of thousands
 

I really do hope the Dems try to make unemployment their sole issue.

No doubt. Bad as the unemployment picture is, there are some much worse
problems with the current administration.

What
will they do at this time next year when we have 12 months of dropping
unemployment rates?

I don't know about the Democrats, but I'll celebrate. (*if*)