"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.