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

See later comment, same thread.

Still waiting...

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


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Go wade through google, Gould. I have never hired a part-time employee
to
avoid paying benefits.

See later comment, same thread.

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.

"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.

...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 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.

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*)

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?