"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
...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.

No it wasn't. You tried to hedge your accusation, however, when you said
"Granted, you stopped short of saying that you *did* what you recommend."
Is that what qualifies as a "Gould Apology"?




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.

See? I'm not as far right as many of you would believe.

You did say, in your reply to NOAH, that anybody who did things
otherwise didn't know much about managing human resources.

I can't remember the context of the conversation, but I believe he was
trying to argue that it made more sense economically to employ *one*
hygienist for 60 hours per week plus benefits, than employing 2 part-time
people for 30 hours each less benefits.




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?

If you do another google search around the same time period of my discussion
with Noah, I'm sure you'll find where I told you that all of my staff had
full-time benefits. You conveniently left out that bit of info...but
managed to remember the part that seemed to suit your argument.

Let me save you the trouble...
I've been in practice 4 years, and have had the same three staff members for
the past 3 1/2 years. As production has increased, I've hired 3 different
individuals to try to fill the position of dental assistant. All 3
positions were to be paid $10/hour with no benefits for 90 days. None of
them had even a day's experience in a dental office and were to be trained
while on-the-job. Following the 90 days, they were to be paid $12/hour and
receive full benefits.

Well, the first one showed up to work and told me she "just found out she
was pregnant...is that a problem?" Well, yeah...she'd be around
amalgam/mercury scrap waste, dental x-rays, nitrous oxide, etc. She was due
in 5 months, but according to her "she didn't know the day before when she
interviewed for the job". She went home that same morning.

The second one showed up on time day 1, left early sick on day 2, and called
in sick on day 3. Day 4 she came on time. Day 5 she had to leave early
because her son got sick, and she called in sick on days 6 and 7 while her
son got better. She worked days 8 and 9, but arrived 5-10 minutes late on
each day because she was "still trying to figuring out how long it would
take to get her son to daycare in the morning". Day 10 her son was sick
again, but her mom watched him. She "worked" a full day. Day 11, she came
to work but left early with a stomach ache. Day 12, she gave me her notice
that she was going to stay home full time with her son.
I think I showed tremendous patience on that one.

The third one was my "wonder employee". She showed up early, stayed late,
was very efficient, and learned things quickly. She even did babysitting on
the side for my kids. She lasted about 4 or 5 months, then her fiance
dumped her and she moved up North to live with her mom until she could
"straighten out her life".

All three employees were single (two were single moms), between the ages of
19 and 25. The three stable staff members I've had are between the ages of
40 and 52. The comments you *may* find in google probably relate to the
fact that the older employees have been the most stable, in my experience.
What you *won't* find is anywhere that I said I only hire from certain age
groups.







"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
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 0738" wrote in message
...

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*)

If we stay on here long enough, we might just start to agree more than we
disagree.

No it wasn't. You tried to hedge your accusation, however, when you said
"Granted, you stopped short of saying that you *did* what you recommend."
Is that what qualifies as a "Gould Apology"?

That wasn't a "hedge", it was a life line. Glad to see you grab it with such
enthusiasm. One of two things is true, and the least negative is that you have
recommended other people practice
employment policies that you, yourself, refrain from.

I posed a question. The question was,
"Didn't you post a couple of months ago that you hire part time employees to
avoid paying fringe benefits?" and you disclaimed any knowledge of ever making
such a statement. You could, at that time, have said, "No, what I have stated
is.........." When I dug the statement up, I noted that your only "out" was to
claim that you didn't practice what you preach.

I can't remember the context of the conversation, but I believe he was
trying to argue that it made more sense economically to employ *one*
hygienist for 60 hours per week plus benefits, than employing 2 part-time
people for 30 hours each less benefits.

That's opposite of what you posted. You stated it was cheaper to work two
dental workers for 25 hours apiece, without benefits or overtime, than to pay
one full time worker for 40 hours, plus 10 hours overtime, plus benefits.

Regardless, you now say that you don't actually do what you recommend as a
sound employment practice. I commended you for that. Didn't you notice?

If we stay on here long enough, we might just start to agree more than we
disagree.



Some of the prophets on the radio right
repeatedly state that the fondest wish of the left is to see America fail so
that Bush will be thrown out of office. That nonsense is repeated by people in
this forum on a regular basis.

Don't believe it. Most people I know who lean to the left are interested in
seeing the country happy, free, and prosperous. Which particular group of
thieves sits in the Oval Office at any given time is less important than
maintaining a strong, Constitutionally derived social and governmental fabric
and the protection of the individual rights that define us as "Americans",
rather than just another free people living in one of the reasonably capitalist
societies around the globe.

Many of the present administration's policies threaten the rights and fabric of
our society. As much as anything else, that's why I would like to see a"regime
change" in Washington DC next year. :-)

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
If we stay on here long enough, we might just start to agree more than we
disagree.



Some of the prophets on the radio right
repeatedly state that the fondest wish of the left is to see America fail
so
that Bush will be thrown out of office. That nonsense is repeated by
people in
this forum on a regular basis.

It's not nonsense. The Democratic party got caught plotting a way to
prolong the financial crisis in California so that they'd gain politically
in 2004. Despite your disbelief, there are some cold-hearted *******s on
the left.



Don't believe it. Most people I know who lean to the left are interested
in
seeing the country happy, free, and prosperous.

Maybe most are. But a lot of 'em think that a little suffering now can pay
dividends in the future...and then we can be happy, free, and prosperous.


Which particular group of
thieves sits in the Oval Office at any given time is less important than
maintaining a strong, Constitutionally derived social and governmental
fabric
and the protection of the individual rights that define us as "Americans",
rather than just another free people living in one of the reasonably
capitalist
societies around the globe.

Many of the present administration's policies threaten the rights and
fabric of
our society.

I don't agree of course.

On 02 Sep 2003 16:12:17 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

If we stay on here long enough, we might just start to agree more than we
disagree.



Some of the prophets on the radio right
repeatedly state that the fondest wish of the left is to see America fail so
that Bush will be thrown out of office. That nonsense is repeated by people in
this forum on a regular basis.

Don't believe it. Most people I know who lean to the left are interested in
seeing the country happy, free, and prosperous. Which particular group of
thieves sits in the Oval Office at any given time is less important than
maintaining a strong, Constitutionally derived social and governmental fabric
and the protection of the individual rights that define us as "Americans",
rather than just another free people living in one of the reasonably capitalist
societies around the globe.

Many of the present administration's policies threaten the rights and fabric of
our society. As much as anything else, that's why I would like to see a"regime
change" in Washington DC next year. :-)

I'm probably one of the ones who has said something similar to that. I don't
think it's true of the population in general, but I do think it's true of
Daschle, Dean, Kasinich (sp?), and many others in political positions of power.
They want power, and if it takes failure on the part of the current
administration to get it, then that's what they want. (IMHO)

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

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 16:44:47 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
If we stay on here long enough, we might just start to agree more than we
disagree.



Some of the prophets on the radio right
repeatedly state that the fondest wish of the left is to see America fail
so
that Bush will be thrown out of office. That nonsense is repeated by
people in
this forum on a regular basis.

It's not nonsense. The Democratic party got caught plotting a way to
prolong the financial crisis in California so that they'd gain politically
in 2004. Despite your disbelief, there are some cold-hearted *******s on
the left.



Don't believe it. Most people I know who lean to the left are interested
in
seeing the country happy, free, and prosperous.

Maybe most are. But a lot of 'em think that a little suffering now can pay
dividends in the future...and then we can be happy, free, and prosperous.


Which particular group of
thieves sits in the Oval Office at any given time is less important than
maintaining a strong, Constitutionally derived social and governmental
fabric
and the protection of the individual rights that define us as "Americans",
rather than just another free people living in one of the reasonably
capitalist
societies around the globe.

Many of the present administration's policies threaten the rights and
fabric of
our society.

I don't agree of course.

I think 98 senators voted for the Patriot Act. Apparently the dems aren't too
worried about 'rights'.

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

"Jim" wrote in message
et...

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
No it wasn't. You tried to hedge your accusation, however, when you said
"Granted, you stopped short of saying that you *did* what you recommend."
Is that what qualifies as a "Gould Apology"?

That wasn't a "hedge", it was a life line. Glad to see you grab it with
such
enthusiasm. One of two things is true, and the least negative is that you
have
recommended other people practice
employment policies that you, yourself, refrain from.

I posed a question. The question was,
"Didn't you post a couple of months ago that you hire part time employees
to
avoid paying fringe benefits?" and you disclaimed any knowledge of ever
making
such a statement.

Before, you were waffling...but now you are lying! Here was my response:

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



You could, at that time, have said, "No, what I have stated
is.........."

Why should I? *You* made the accusation...you provide the proof.


When I dug the statement up, I noted that your only "out" was to
claim that you didn't practice what you preach.

My only "out"? My out was the truth...and the truth is that I do not hire,
and have not hired, part-time employees to avoid paying fringe benefits.


I can't remember the context of the conversation, but I believe he was
trying to argue that it made more sense economically to employ *one*
hygienist for 60 hours per week plus benefits, than employing 2 part-time
people for 30 hours each less benefits.

That's opposite of what you posted.

No it's not. That's Noah's argument you're responding to above...not mine.

You stated it was cheaper to work two
dental workers for 25 hours apiece, without benefits or overtime, than to
pay
one full time worker for 40 hours, plus 10 hours overtime, plus benefits.

And it is!


Regardless, you now say that you don't actually do what you recommend as a
sound employment practice. I commended you for that. Didn't you notice?

Thanks. But it's interesting that you still can't bring yourself to say "I
was wrong, NOYB. You never posted a couple of months ago that you hire
part-time employees in order to avoid paying fringe benefits...so I'm sorry
I falsely accused you".



It will never happen...old Chuck is not man enough to fess up when he is wrong OR
OFFER an
apology when he accuses someone of something they never said/did.

He recently proved he cannot keep his word.

He is a man of dubious character.



Correction made to my previous statement. Yes, I guess I am only human.

On 02 Sep 2003 19:10:16 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

I think 98 senators voted for the Patriot Act. Apparently the dems aren't too
worried about 'rights'.

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

John, we seem to agree that the "Patriot Act" endangers individual rights.

Congrats. There's hope for you yet. :-)

It endangers the hell out of SOME individuals' rights, and rightly so.

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