On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:16:30 -0700, Blinky the Shark wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 17:23:59 -0700 (PDT), itsjoannotjoann wrote:
>>
>>> How in hell is Wal Mart or any person/company going to know how
>>> another person is voting???? Two-way mirrors in the voting booth??
>>> Hidden survelliance cameras over the voting booths?? Should voters
>>> take an umbrella into the booth with them then raise it thus thwarting
>>> the survelliance camera??
>>>
>>> <eye roll>
>>
>> they don't know how anyone votes. (still, with the surveillance atmophere
>> the way it is, i would forgive people for being paranoid about it.)
>>
>> still, why should any employee, manager or not, have to sit through this
>> bullshit?
>
> Because they are employees. Don't look now, but companies require
> employees to do stuff. That's part of working for one.

but usually it's at least tangentially related to, you know, work.

your pal,
blake

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:17:50 -0700, Blinky the Shark wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:24:32 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 20, 4:25�pm, "Gregory Morrow" > wrote:
>>>> Lifted from another group, in this case alt.activism.death-penalty:
>>>>
>>>> "You've got to check this out. Wal-Mart is telling its employees how to
>>>> vote in the upcoming election.
>>>>
>>>> http://action.americanrightsatwork.o...lMart_followup
>>>>
>>>> Apparently Wal-Mart has been holding mandatory meetings with
>>>> supervisors, threatening them that if they vote for pro-worker
>>>> candidates like Barack Obama in November, the Employee Free Choice Act
>>>> will pass, making it easier to form unions in Wal-Mart stores.
>>>>
>>>> This is potentially illegal, and grassroots groups have demanded that
>>>> the Federal Election Commission investigate, but the FEC hasn't said
>>>> whether they'll move forward!
>>>>
>>>> I don't think anyone should be told by their boss how to vote. So I
>>>> just signed a petition, urging the FEC to take action. You can too,
>>>> he
>>>>
>>>> http://action.americanrightsatwork.o...lMart_followup
>>>>
>>>> </>
>>>
>>> Last I heard, voting was done by secret ballot. So unless my boss or
>>> supervisor is with me in the voting both I'm voting for whomever I
>>> want. I may say I'm voting for one candidate but that doesn't mean
>>> I'm actually going to actually vote for that candidate. Even after I
>>> vote I won't reveal whom I voted for because frankly it's nobody's
>>> business.
>>
>> even so, this kind of activity on wal-mart's part is way, way out of line
>> and they need to be called on it.
>
> Unions take sides and recommend slates of candidates, too. You're gonna
> have to call them on it, as well, eh?

the union doesn't sign your paycheck. the boss telling you who to vote for
smacks of coercion.

your pal,
blake

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 17:01:10 -0400, Nancy Young wrote:

> Pete C. wrote:
>> notbob wrote:
>
>>> Agreed. most corporations have some sort of bullshit agenda they
>>> try and suck their employees into. The bane of my last job was
>>> United Way, the company going so far as to try to get me to do
>>> automatic monthly donations so they could reach some sort of
>>> "pillar" status. Sure, pal!
>
>> UW is one of the most corrupt "charities" out there. My company plays
>> their game too, and I refuse to even legitimize UW with a response,
>> much less a donation. There is a long list of real charities I'd
>> consider supporting long before I'd consider giving corrupt UW big
>> wigs anything.
>
> I would certainly contribute directly to a charity of my choice
> rather than filter it through UW.
>
> nancy

in most united way campaigns, this is very easy to do. there's usually a
list of organizations you can 'designate,' and i *think* a provision to
designate someone not on the list. i did that for many years.

your pal,
blake

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 22:32:11 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
>>
>> even so, this kind of activity on wal-mart's part is way, way out of line
>> and they need to be called on it.
>
> How about the candidates that you see on TV touring the auto plants and
> such? How about union activity to support their favorite candidate? All
> the BS should be banned.

what, the boss' political action committee can contribute and the union
cannot?

i don't see what candidates visiting plants has to do with anything. there
are voters there.

your pal,
blake

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> Some of them send packages mail return address stickers, Christmas
> cards, calenders, key fops, and other useless crap and enclose a bill.
> Some people are dumb enough to actually pay for the stuff, not
> realizing that you are under no obligation to pay for unsolicited
> goods. And once you pay..... wham! You are on their sucker list and
> you get more and more beg letters and unsolicited goods with bills.


Think of all the money they could put to better use if they'd stop mailing
all that *junk*. Most of these charities have never gotten a dime from me,
yet I haven't had to purchase address labels in at least 10 years

Jill

blake murphy wrote:
>
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 17:01:10 -0400, Nancy Young wrote:
>
> > Pete C. wrote:
> >> notbob wrote:
> >
> >>> Agreed. most corporations have some sort of bullshit agenda they
> >>> try and suck their employees into. The bane of my last job was
> >>> United Way, the company going so far as to try to get me to do
> >>> automatic monthly donations so they could reach some sort of
> >>> "pillar" status. Sure, pal!
> >
> >> UW is one of the most corrupt "charities" out there. My company plays
> >> their game too, and I refuse to even legitimize UW with a response,
> >> much less a donation. There is a long list of real charities I'd
> >> consider supporting long before I'd consider giving corrupt UW big
> >> wigs anything.
> >
> > I would certainly contribute directly to a charity of my choice
> > rather than filter it through UW.
> >
> > nancy
>
> in most united way campaigns, this is very easy to do. there's usually a
> list of organizations you can 'designate,' and i *think* a provision to
> designate someone not on the list. i did that for many years.
>
> your pal,
> blake

If you want to designate the few percent of your donation that is not
consumed by corrupt UW "fundraising overhead" to a particular actual
charity, I'm sure those few cents will actually go to the designee. Of
course if you donate directly to the actual charity, then all of your
donation goes to that charity. UW does nothing but try to wedge
themselves between donors and actual charities and skim their huge
salaries off while stroking their egos pretending they are actually
helping someone other than themselves.

jmcquown wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>> Some of them send packages mail return address stickers, Christmas
>> cards, calenders, key fops, and other useless crap and enclose a bill.
>> Some people are dumb enough to actually pay for the stuff, not
>> realizing that you are under no obligation to pay for unsolicited
>> goods. And once you pay..... wham! You are on their sucker list and
>> you get more and more beg letters and unsolicited goods with bills.
>
>
> Think of all the money they could put to better use if they'd stop
> mailing all that *junk*. Most of these charities have never gotten a
> dime from me, yet I haven't had to purchase address labels in at least
> 10 years
>
> Jill


In the past six months I have received an average of two sets of name
labels per month from charities I had never heard of and have no
intention of supporting. I have well over a lifetime worth of labels,
most of which I cut the logo off before using.

gloria p

blake murphy wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 17:01:10 -0400, Nancy Young wrote:

>> I would certainly contribute directly to a charity of my choice
>> rather than filter it through UW.

> in most united way campaigns, this is very easy to do. there's
> usually a list of organizations you can 'designate,' and i *think* a
> provision to designate someone not on the list. i did that for many
> years.

Right, then they take their cut before passing it along.

I don't like that charity one bit, for a number of reasons. That's
aside from the fact that I prefer to keep my personal business
out of work as much as one can.

nancy

On Oct 21, 4:26 pm, notbob > wrote:
> On 2008-10-21, Pete C. > wrote:
> I even quit going to the rah-rah rallies on company time, preferring to stay
> at my desk and work. Hard to admonish a person who chooses to continue
> working.
>
> nb

You mean you weren't TOLD you were going? Herded onto a bus? Treated
to a breakfast or lunch? Told what was considered your Fair Share?
Called in for a private meeting with your boss where he gave you the
"I've got three mouths to feed at home" line if you opted to give
less? (Oops, I think that was during the US savings bond drive,
another instance where 'no' wasn't accepted.)

What cured me on the UW was the news story about the 6 figure
severance pay one of their execs received after dirty dealings were
unearthed.

blake murphy wrote:
>
> in most united way campaigns, this is very easy to do. there's usually a
> list of organizations you can 'designate,' and i *think* a provision to
> designate someone not on the list. i did that for many years.


When I went to a United Way meeting as a representative for my employer
we were told that the deal is that UW is an umbrella organization for a
number of charities. Rather than have each of them coming around to
solicit donations it was a one stop donation. They were the only one to
come around and they distributed the funds to the other charities under
their umbrella, so employees would not have to deal with other the
others. I went around and talked to my coworkers, explained all that to
them and gave them pledge cards,our employees and got donations from

Less than 6 months after I did my bit for the United Way, a woman I work
with came around soliciting for another charity umbrella organization.

In article 7>,
Wayne Boatwright > wrote:


> As a company, when I worked for the Bell System, we were all *required* to
> attend the United Way meetings, no exceptions. Failure to contribute to
> United Way was duly noted in one's HR record and impacted one's merit
> increases. Since I now work for a non-profit organization and could be
> considered a United Way recipient, there is no United Way Drive. However,
> we do have quarterly "retreats" that are supposedly focused on team-
> building. Attendance is mandatory. We had one last month. It was
> bowling! Last Summer it was a trip to the zoo, teams formed to play
> "scavenger hunt" animal identification. Those who can't physically
> participate in whatever event is planned still must attend, but are
> supposed to cheer their team on. These events do mean a day away from
> work, however, without concern for priorities or deadlines.

I used to work for the US Government (actually, I worked for them twice,
but this was the first time). My position was funded from
non-appropriated money, so I wasn't a civil service employee. During my
orientation, it was strongly suggested that I sign up for payroll
deduction to buy US Savings Bonds. I could sign up for the minimum, it
would just cost a few bucks a month and when I had accumulated US$18.75,
I would get a US$25 face value bond in the mail, which would actually be
worth US$25 at maturity. I could immediately take it to the bank and
get my US$18.75 back. That's what most people did. The big boss would
get a certificate each year, certifying 100% participation, which made
the big boss happy. It wasn't a good idea to make the big boss unhappy.
To make sure I understand, I was told a story. Every field agent, of
whatever grade, got a raise every year (until they maxed out). This
wasn't required, of course, but it always happened. One field agent,
who had been there several years, decided not to buy savings bonds via
payroll deduction any more. He even called the head office in
Washington D.C. to confirm that he didn't have to. He was correct, it
was totally voluntary. Now, the guy was pretty stupid. Nice guy,
worked hard, but stupid. It took him three years to figure out that he
was no longer getting yearly raises. Every other field agent (well over
a hundred in that region) was getting yearly raises. He asked the
bosses, and they said it was voluntary, and he just didn't qualify for a
raise. He talked to the other people, and they said, sure it was
voluntary, just like enrolling in payroll deduction for Savings Bonds
was voluntary. They suggested that he reconsider his decision about
Savings Bonds. So he signed up, and resumed his yearly pay raises (not
retroactively, though). You can just guess what I did!

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On 2008-10-22, Nancy Young > wrote:

> are. Team building, that was the worst. The first one was horrid,
> the rest fine, we went bowling and billiard playing. Hello, our group
> had worked together for some 15 years! We didn't need to build
> our team!

This is what middle management comes up with to justify their existence and
insane salaries. I saw this useless crap over and over again for 10 yrs.
See, upper mgt needs yes droids as a buffer between themselves and the
workers. If they were to ask a worker a simple question, they'd get a
straight answer like, "no, that's a screwdriver, you dolt!", which would
insult their delicate sensibilities. So, they hire ppl to cushion reality
so they don't have to soil themselves with direct contact.

It's a huge drain on a companies resources and maintaining this
no-value-added layer makes the bean counters crazy, forcing them to gut
worker counts for overseas export. It was all pointed out in fine detail by
Peter Townsend nearly 40 yrs ago in his classic book, Up the Organization.
Unfortunately, despite high praise, few companies actually recognized or
followed his advice, hence team building and other pointless bullshit.

My favorite example was when the comic strip artist, Scott Adams (Dilbert),
passed himself off to Logitech mgt as a consultent and led a mgt team in
creating a new Mission Statement, a spoof exercise revealing just how stupid
these ppl really a

http://web.mit.edu/jcb/humor/scott-a...gmt-consultant

nb

Dan Abel wrote:

> always happened. One field agent, who had been there several years,
> decided not to buy savings bonds via payroll deduction any more. He
> even called the head office in Washington D.C. to confirm that he
> didn't have to. He was correct, it was totally voluntary. Now, the
> guy was pretty stupid. Nice guy, worked hard, but stupid. It took
> him three years to figure out that he was no longer getting yearly
> raises. Every other field agent (well over a hundred in that region)
> was getting yearly raises. He asked the bosses, and they said it was
> voluntary, and he just didn't qualify for a raise. He talked to the
> other people, and they said, sure it was voluntary, just like
> enrolling in payroll deduction for Savings Bonds was voluntary. They
> suggested that he reconsider his decision about Savings Bonds. So he
> signed up, and resumed his yearly pay raises (not retroactively,
> though). You can just guess what I did!

That's terrible. Just what you'd expect when you tie the boss's
performance review to something like that. Never mind you lose a
month's interest every time you buy a savings bond that way.

nancy

On 2008-10-22, > wrote:

> You mean you weren't TOLD you were going? Herded onto a bus? Treated
> to a breakfast or lunch? Told what was considered your Fair Share?
> Called in for a private meeting with your boss where he gave you the
> "I've got three mouths to feed at home" line if you opted to give
> less?

Yeah, I got that run around. I ignored the twits for the next few years
till I was rif'd.

> What cured me on the UW was the news story about the 6 figure
> severance pay one of their execs received after dirty dealings were
> unearthed.

Yep. Dirtbags till the end.

nb

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 22:32:11 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
>> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> even so, this kind of activity on wal-mart's part is way, way out of
>>> line
>>> and they need to be called on it.
>>
>> How about the candidates that you see on TV touring the auto plants and
>> such? How about union activity to support their favorite candidate? All
>> the BS should be banned.
>
> what, the boss' political action committee can contribute and the union
> cannot?
>
> i don't see what candidates visiting plants has to do with anything.
> there
> are voters there.
>
> your pal,
> blake

But both should be invited, not just the party of choice of the management.
I don't need a candidate to visit me at work and make a speech when I get
plenty of information from other sources. They are welcome to knock on my
door at home if they want so I can ask them questions face to face.

On Oct 22, 2:30 pm, notbob > wrote:
> On 2008-10-22, > wrote:
>
> > You mean you weren't TOLD you were going? Herded onto a bus? Treated
> > to a breakfast or lunch? Told what was considered your Fair Share?
> > Called in for a private meeting with your boss where he gave you the
> > "I've got three mouths to feed at home" line if you opted to give
> > less?
>
> Yeah, I got that run around. I ignored the twits for the next few years
> till I was rif'd.
>
> > What cured me on the UW was the news story about the 6 figure
> > severance pay one of their execs received after dirty dealings were
> > unearthed.
>
> Yep. Dirtbags till the end.
>
> nb

I've been lucky enough to have never had one of those jobs, but my
favorite relevant story is about a college girlfriend. She had a part-
time, one day/week job (with a charity, as it happens). Part of it
was a one-hour mandatory weekly meeting, to discuss what she was doing
the other 6 1/2 hours.

b

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>
> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 22:32:11 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >
> >> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
> >>>
> >>> even so, this kind of activity on wal-mart's part is way, way out of
> >>> line
> >>> and they need to be called on it.
> >>
> >> How about the candidates that you see on TV touring the auto plants and
> >> such? How about union activity to support their favorite candidate? All
> >> the BS should be banned.
> >
> > what, the boss' political action committee can contribute and the union
> > cannot?
> >
> > i don't see what candidates visiting plants has to do with anything.
> > there
> > are voters there.
> >
> > your pal,
> > blake
>
> But both should be invited, not just the party of choice of the management.
> I don't need a candidate to visit me at work and make a speech when I get
> plenty of information from other sources.


> They are welcome to knock on my
> door at home if they want so I can ask them questions face to face.

Would you really want McCain or Obama to show up on your doorstep with
the fleet of media behind them?

notbob wrote:
> On 2008-10-22, Nancy Young > wrote:

> It's a huge drain on a companies resources and maintaining this
> no-value-added layer makes the bean counters crazy, forcing them to
> gut worker counts for overseas export.

It's the truth. One of my bosses had to hire one more manager
to maintain *his* status as manager. Hire or be demoted. Three
managers, 20 people. Good thing none of them did anything but
leave us alone to do the work. Crazy.

> My favorite example was when the comic strip artist, Scott Adams
> (Dilbert), passed himself off to Logitech mgt as a consultent and led
> a mgt team in creating a new Mission Statement, a spoof exercise
> revealing just how stupid these ppl really a

That was hilarious. and management *still* doesn't get it. Well,
why should they, what's in it for them.

nancy

blake murphy wrote:

> On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:17:50 -0700, Blinky the Shark wrote:
>
>> blake murphy wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:24:32 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Oct 20, 4:25�pm, "Gregory Morrow" > wrote:
>>>>> Lifted from another group, in this case alt.activism.death-penalty:
>>>>>
>>>>> "You've got to check this out. Wal-Mart is telling its employees how to
>>>>> vote in the upcoming election.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://action.americanrightsatwork.o...lMart_followup
>>>>>
>>>>> Apparently Wal-Mart has been holding mandatory meetings with
>>>>> supervisors, threatening them that if they vote for pro-worker
>>>>> candidates like Barack Obama in November, the Employee Free Choice Act
>>>>> will pass, making it easier to form unions in Wal-Mart stores.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is potentially illegal, and grassroots groups have demanded that
>>>>> the Federal Election Commission investigate, but the FEC hasn't said
>>>>> whether they'll move forward!
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think anyone should be told by their boss how to vote. So I
>>>>> just signed a petition, urging the FEC to take action. You can too,
>>>>> he
>>>>>
>>>>> http://action.americanrightsatwork.o...lMart_followup
>>>>>
>>>>> </>
>>>>
>>>> Last I heard, voting was done by secret ballot. So unless my boss or
>>>> supervisor is with me in the voting both I'm voting for whomever I
>>>> want. I may say I'm voting for one candidate but that doesn't mean
>>>> I'm actually going to actually vote for that candidate. Even after I
>>>> vote I won't reveal whom I voted for because frankly it's nobody's
>>>> business.
>>>
>>> even so, this kind of activity on wal-mart's part is way, way out of line
>>> and they need to be called on it.
>>
>> Unions take sides and recommend slates of candidates, too. You're gonna
>> have to call them on it, as well, eh?
>
> the union doesn't sign your paycheck. the boss telling you who to vote for
> smacks of coercion.

He doesn't know who you vote for in this country. There's that "secret
ballot" thing, ya know?


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html

Dave Smith wrote:
> PeterLucas wrote:
>
>>> salary. They also revealed the percentage of donations that go to
>>> fund raising and salaries and the amount that is actually spent on
>>> charity.
>>>
>>
>>
>> This is the one reason I don't donate to "charities" who plead for
>> money to help all the 'starving millions' overseas.
>>
>>
>> One organisation here was taken to task and admitted that only .22c in
>> every $ that was donated made it to the target country. The other .78c
>> per $ was taken up with 'wages' etc, etc.
>>
>> And even when the money *does* finally get to the target country, most
>> of it is ripped off by corrupt government officials of the target
>> country.
>
> You also run the risk of being put on the professional fund raising
> sucker list. Once you donate and give your name and address you are
> besieged with soliciting mail from all the others. I donate to the
> Cancer society. Now I get beg letters from the Lang Cancer Society, the
> Kidney Cancer Society, the Lymphoma Society, the Breast Cancer Society
> and so on. Close to 90% of the mail that arrives in my mail box is
> charity soliciting. I get at least one each day, sometimes 4 or more.

I found a easy way around that. First I research the charities to find
those where a high percentage of the donations actually go to the cause.
I then buy $0.39 money orders for whatever amount I want to donate and
never include real information. That way they can't sell or give my name
to someone else or decide to bombard me with solicitations.


>
> Some of them send packages mail return address stickers, Christmas
> cards, calenders, key fops, and other useless crap and enclose a bill.
> Some people are dumb enough to actually pay for the stuff, not realizing
> that you are under no obligation to pay for unsolicited goods. And once
> you pay..... wham! You are on their sucker list and you get more and
> more beg letters and unsolicited goods with bills.
>
>

In article >,
"Nancy Young" > wrote:

> Dan Abel wrote:
>
> > always happened. One field agent, who had been there several years,
> > decided not to buy savings bonds via payroll deduction any more. He
> > even called the head office in Washington D.C. to confirm that he
> > didn't have to. He was correct, it was totally voluntary. Now, the
> > guy was pretty stupid. Nice guy, worked hard, but stupid. It took
> > him three years to figure out that he was no longer getting yearly
> > raises. Every other field agent (well over a hundred in that region)
> > was getting yearly raises. He asked the bosses, and they said it was
> > voluntary, and he just didn't qualify for a raise. He talked to the
> > other people, and they said, sure it was voluntary, just like
> > enrolling in payroll deduction for Savings Bonds was voluntary. They
> > suggested that he reconsider his decision about Savings Bonds. So he
> > signed up, and resumed his yearly pay raises (not retroactively,
> > though). You can just guess what I did!
>
> That's terrible. Just what you'd expect when you tie the boss's
> performance review to something like that. Never mind you lose a
> month's interest every time you buy a savings bond that way.

As I remember, from 35 years ago, it took several months to accumulate
enough deductions for one bond. It really was an insignificant amount,
even on gross pay of US$750 a month.

It was a weird place. The big boss decided that all the vacation
anybody needed was three weeks. Since, as a new employee, I only got
two weeks anyway, that didn't matter. For people there longer, it was
two weeks during the summer, staggered so there was coverage, and one
week between Christmas and New Years, when we shut down, except for
newbies like myself who didn't yet have a week accumulated. For people
there a long time, they accrued more than three weeks a year, but
weren't allowed to take it. It sat on the books until they accumulated
the max carryover, at which point they started losing it. This was a
sore point.

I lasted a year there. I wasn't sorry to leave, since I didn't like to
travel, and I was on travel status every day of the month. When I
filled out my travel voucher each month, I had to account for every day
of the month. Most weekends were simply "weekend", but often we had to
leave on Sunday and come back on Saturday for longer trips.

The big boss left to work for a bank (I was a bank examiner). He was
fired within a year (maybe he was too weird for them?).

The bigger boss, the one in Washington D.C., was fired a year or two
later. He was personally fired by the President of the US, during a
press conference called specifically for that purpose. He was accused
by the GAO of disobeying their rules about travel expenditures. There
was the big party, with chartered planes, travel paid for spouses and
paid entertainment. These are not allowed by the GAO. The bigger boss
said that those rules didn't apply, since he was using non-appropriated
funds which the GAO, as a legislative function, had no control over.
The president agreed that the GAO had no control, but the appearance of
government fund misuse didn't make the President and the executive
branch look good. As the bigger boss was a Presidential appointee (an
Assistant Treasury Secretary), and thus serving at the pleasure of the
President, when the President wasn't happy, the Comptroller of the
Currency was fired.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

"Gregory Morrow" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Lifted from another group, in this case alt.activism.death-penalty:

Just shows to go ya, one lefty issue is as good as another. Unions?
Executions? What's the difference?

"Pete C." > wrote in message
>
>> They are welcome to knock on my
>> door at home if they want so I can ask them questions face to face.
>
> Would you really want McCain or Obama to show up on your doorstep with
> the fleet of media behind them?

They sure made a circus of Joe the Plumber. No, they are welcome sans media.
OK for an assistant or security. I've had the local politicians knock at
times, usually alone or with maybe one other person.

"Wayne Boatwright" > wrote in message
> As a company, when I worked for the Bell System, we were all *required* to
> attend the United Way meetings, no exceptions. Failure to contribute to
> United Way was duly noted in one's HR record and impacted one's merit
> increases. Since I now work for a non-profit organization and could be
> considered a United Way recipient, there is no United Way Drive. However,
> we do have quarterly "retreats" that are supposedly focused on team-
> building. Attendance is mandatory. We had one last month. It was
> bowling! Last Summer it was a trip to the zoo, teams formed to play
> "scavenger hunt" animal identification. Those who can't physically
> participate in whatever event is planned still must attend, but are
> supposed to cheer their team on. These events do mean a day away from
> work, however, without concern for priorities or deadlines.
>
> --
> Wayne Boatwright
> (correct the spelling of "geemail" to reply)

That type of crap would drive me nuts. It did take a number of years to
truly put together a great team of employees though. Everyone at our
company is dedicated and we all work together towards the common goal of
making a profit by making a good product. We use team building techniques
such as good pay, bonuses, profit sharing, little rewards at unexpected
times, and allowing employees to see their labor pays off.

Our company is small (20 employees) so it is easier to do things like that
on a personal basis. Turnover is almost non existent. In the past five
years, one employee quit because he was moving to Florida for his wife's
health..

On Oct 22, 11:04*pm, Dave Smith > wrote:
> PeterLucas wrote:
> >> salary. *They also revealed the percentage of donations that go to
> >> fund raising and salaries and the amount that is actually spent on
> >> charity.
>
> > This is the one reason I don't donate to "charities" who plead for money to
> > help all the 'starving millions' overseas.
>
> > One organisation here was taken to task and admitted that only .22c in
> > every $ that was donated made it to the target country. The other .78c per
> > $ was taken up with 'wages' etc, etc.
>
> > And even when the money *does* finally get to the target country, most of
> > it is ripped off by corrupt government officials of the target country.
>
> You also run the risk of being put on the professional fund raising
> sucker list. Once you donate and give your name and address you are
> besieged with soliciting mail from all the others. I donate to the
> Cancer society. Now I get beg letters from the Lang Cancer Society, the
> Kidney Cancer Society, the Lymphoma Society, the Breast Cancer Society
> and so on. Close to 90% of the mail that arrives in my mail box is
> charity soliciting. I get at least one each day, sometimes 4 or more.
>
> Some of them send packages *mail return address stickers, Christmas
> cards, calenders, key fops, and other useless crap and enclose a bill.
> Some people are dumb enough to actually pay for the stuff, not realizing
> that you are under no obligation to pay for unsolicited goods. And once
> you pay..... wham! You are on their sucker list and you get more and
> more beg letters and unsolicited goods with bills.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Keep the goods and do not pay. They stop once you do that.

JB

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 20:20:55 -0700 (PDT), Golden One
> wrote:

>Keep the goods and do not pay. They stop once you do that.

I had no idea the strategy of sending unsolicited goods and demanding
payment was used anymore. Apparently a sucker *is* born every minute.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Oct 23, 2:31*pm, sf > wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 20:20:55 -0700 (PDT), Golden One
>
> > wrote:
> >Keep the goods and do not pay. They stop once you do that.
>
> I had no idea the strategy of sending unsolicited goods and demanding
> payment was used anymore. *Apparently a sucker *is* born every minute.
>
> --
> I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
> interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.
>
> Mae West

I belonged to a book club that kept on sending books I had not ordered
and I got sick of wasting time posting them back. Next lot I kept and
said I had not received them. What do you know..... no more books sent
without an order.

JB

Golden One wrote:

>>
>> Some of them send packages mail return address stickers, Christmas
>> cards, calenders, key fops, and other useless crap and enclose a bill.
>> Some people are dumb enough to actually pay for the stuff, not realizing
>> that you are under no obligation to pay for unsolicited goods. And once
>> you pay..... wham! You are on their sucker list and you get more and
>> more beg letters and unsolicited goods with bills.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Keep the goods and do not pay. They stop once you do that.

I do keep them, or throw them out. They send invoices. I don't pay. They
keep sending them.

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 12:04:23 -0700, Blinky the Shark wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:17:50 -0700, Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>
>>> blake murphy wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:24:32 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 20, 4:25�pm, "Gregory Morrow" > wrote:
>>>>>> Lifted from another group, in this case alt.activism.death-penalty:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "You've got to check this out. Wal-Mart is telling its employees how to
>>>>>> vote in the upcoming election.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://action.americanrightsatwork.o...lMart_followup
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apparently Wal-Mart has been holding mandatory meetings with
>>>>>> supervisors, threatening them that if they vote for pro-worker
>>>>>> candidates like Barack Obama in November, the Employee Free Choice Act
>>>>>> will pass, making it easier to form unions in Wal-Mart stores.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is potentially illegal, and grassroots groups have demanded that
>>>>>> the Federal Election Commission investigate, but the FEC hasn't said
>>>>>> whether they'll move forward!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think anyone should be told by their boss how to vote. So I
>>>>>> just signed a petition, urging the FEC to take action. You can too,
>>>>>> he
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://action.americanrightsatwork.o...lMart_followup
>>>>>>
>>>>>> </>
>>>>>
>>>>> Last I heard, voting was done by secret ballot. So unless my boss or
>>>>> supervisor is with me in the voting both I'm voting for whomever I
>>>>> want. I may say I'm voting for one candidate but that doesn't mean
>>>>> I'm actually going to actually vote for that candidate. Even after I
>>>>> vote I won't reveal whom I voted for because frankly it's nobody's
>>>>> business.
>>>>
>>>> even so, this kind of activity on wal-mart's part is way, way out of line
>>>> and they need to be called on it.
>>>
>>> Unions take sides and recommend slates of candidates, too. You're gonna
>>> have to call them on it, as well, eh?
>>
>> the union doesn't sign your paycheck. the boss telling you who to vote for
>> smacks of coercion.
>
> He doesn't know who you vote for in this country. There's that "secret
> ballot" thing, ya know?

i would bet that there are voters who don't know that or don't trust that.
the boss should stay the **** out of it.

your pal,
blake

On Oct 21, 5:01 pm, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
> Pete C. wrote:
> > notbob wrote:
> >> Agreed. most corporations have some sort of bullshit agenda they
> >> try and suck their employees into. The bane of my last job was
> >> United Way, the company going so far as to try to get me to do
> >> automatic monthly donations so they could reach some sort of
> >> "pillar" status. Sure, pal!
> > UW is one of the most corrupt "charities" out there. My company plays
> > their game too, and I refuse to even legitimize UW with a response,
> > much less a donation. There is a long list of real charities I'd
> > consider supporting long before I'd consider giving corrupt UW big
> > wigs anything.
>
> I would certainly contribute directly to a charity of my choice
> rather than filter it through UW.
>
> nancy

That approach didn't work - the company wanted to get their points for
running the fund drive. Also, any attempt at earmarking your
contribution for a specific UW recipient was out of the question.
One gal who was a former nun, simply stated that all her extra money
went to a specific charity and that was end of story. She was not to
be swayed, so they left her alone.

On Oct 21, 12:34 pm, notbob > wrote:

>
> You needed another reason? Isn't the fact 95% of their products are cheap
> junk from China enough? How about wrecking the local economy, being a drain
> on local social services, corrupt business practices, etc?


These new Walmarts opening in China - are they going to fill them with
cheap junk from the States?

I managed to buy some socks yesterday - made in USA - almost fainted
in the aisle. Is the tide turning?

wrote:
> On Oct 21, 5:01 pm, "Nancy Young" > wrote:

>> I would certainly contribute directly to a charity of my choice
>> rather than filter it through UW.

> That approach didn't work - the company wanted to get their points for
> running the fund drive.

Oh, I didn't mean contribute through work, I don't give crap
about them getting points. The way UW is pushed from the
very CEOs of companies, I assume said CEOs are getting a
car or a trip out of the deal.

I contributed outside of work.

nancy

blake murphy wrote:

> On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 12:04:23 -0700, Blinky the Shark wrote:
>
>> blake murphy wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:17:50 -0700, Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>>
>>>> blake murphy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:24:32 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 20, 4:25�pm, "Gregory Morrow" > wrote:
>>>>>>> Lifted from another group, in this case alt.activism.death-penalty:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "You've got to check this out. Wal-Mart is telling its employees how to
>>>>>>> vote in the upcoming election.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://action.americanrightsatwork.o...lMart_followup
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apparently Wal-Mart has been holding mandatory meetings with
>>>>>>> supervisors, threatening them that if they vote for pro-worker
>>>>>>> candidates like Barack Obama in November, the Employee Free Choice Act
>>>>>>> will pass, making it easier to form unions in Wal-Mart stores.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is potentially illegal, and grassroots groups have demanded that
>>>>>>> the Federal Election Commission investigate, but the FEC hasn't said
>>>>>>> whether they'll move forward!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think anyone should be told by their boss how to vote. So I
>>>>>>> just signed a petition, urging the FEC to take action. You can too,
>>>>>>> he
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://action.americanrightsatwork.o...lMart_followup
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> </>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Last I heard, voting was done by secret ballot. So unless my boss or
>>>>>> supervisor is with me in the voting both I'm voting for whomever I
>>>>>> want. I may say I'm voting for one candidate but that doesn't mean
>>>>>> I'm actually going to actually vote for that candidate. Even after I
>>>>>> vote I won't reveal whom I voted for because frankly it's nobody's
>>>>>> business.
>>>>>
>>>>> even so, this kind of activity on wal-mart's part is way, way out of line
>>>>> and they need to be called on it.
>>>>
>>>> Unions take sides and recommend slates of candidates, too. You're gonna
>>>> have to call them on it, as well, eh?
>>>
>>> the union doesn't sign your paycheck. the boss telling you who to vote for
>>> smacks of coercion.
>>
>> He doesn't know who you vote for in this country. There's that "secret
>> ballot" thing, ya know?
>
> i would bet that there are voters who don't know that or don't trust that.

That's their problem. Nobody's *making* them be ignorant.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html

On Oct 21, 9:47*pm, "Pete C." > wrote:
> Gregory Morrow wrote:
>
> > notbob wrote:
>
> > > On 2008-10-21, Pete C. > wrote:
>
> > > > less a donation. There is a long list of real charities I'd consider
> > > > supporting long before I'd consider giving corrupt UW big wigs anything.
>
> > > I even quit going to the rah-rah rallies on company time, preferring to
> > stay
> > > at my desk and work. *Hard to admonish a person who chooses to continue
> > > working. *
>
> > "We note that 'nb' does not attend the required fund - raising rallies and
> > so is not a 'team player' - this implies that he has an 'incorrect'
> > attitude...natcherly we have made an 'adjustment' in his personal
> > dossier..."
>
> > ;-P
>
> Probably.
>
> I don't attend "diversity training", I told HR that participation in
> such social engineering activities is against my religion.

Neither do I. But I told my supervisor that such mass "mandatory"
training is politically correct bull-shit and a waste of my work
time. Unless he wanted to articulate something about my demeanor or
interaction with my coworkers that suggests I need that type of
training, or tell me about a complaint from someone, I'd stay at my
work station. Two review cycles with maximum merit pay increases, and
I've yet to suffer any negative impact.

On 2008-10-23, > wrote:

> These new Walmarts opening in China - are they going to fill them with
> cheap junk from the States?

No. Sell tainted infant formula which is killing Chinese babies.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapc...china.formula/

> I managed to buy some socks yesterday - made in USA - almost fainted
> in the aisle. Is the tide turning?

I doubt it. They do indeed carry a line of USA made wool socks that are
awesome. I'm wearing a pair of morino wool socks from WM, now. Apperently,
not a lot of sheep in China.

OTOH, the Made in USA items may be suspect:

http://www.usstuff.com/saipan.htm

nb

On 2008-10-23, BigDog1 > wrote:

> work station. Two review cycles with maximum merit pay increases, and
> I've yet to suffer any negative impact.

Some are not so fortunate. Despite my last company's very enlightened HR
policies, evil still abounds. Several employees, all of whom worked for the
same mgr, won a significant lawsuit against the company. They all claimed
they were let go ...of course other reasons were given.... for refusing to
attend self improvement seminars the mgr endorsed. I forget which one, EST,
Rolf, Scientology, etc. One of those bullshit improvement scams that
charge mucho $$$.

nb

On Oct 22, 11:20*pm, Golden One > wrote:
> On Oct 22, 11:04*pm, Dave Smith > wrote:
>
>
>
> > PeterLucas wrote:
> > >> salary. *They also revealed the percentage of donations that go to
> > >> fund raising and salaries and the amount that is actually spent on
> > >> charity.
>
> > > This is the one reason I don't donate to "charities" who plead for money to
> > > help all the 'starving millions' overseas.
>
> > > One organisation here was taken to task and admitted that only .22c in
> > > every $ that was donated made it to the target country. The other .78c per
> > > $ was taken up with 'wages' etc, etc.
>
> > > And even when the money *does* finally get to the target country, most of
> > > it is ripped off by corrupt government officials of the target country.
>
> > You also run the risk of being put on the professional fund raising
> > sucker list. Once you donate and give your name and address you are
> > besieged with soliciting mail from all the others. I donate to the
> > Cancer society. Now I get beg letters from the Lang Cancer Society, the
> > Kidney Cancer Society, the Lymphoma Society, the Breast Cancer Society
> > and so on. Close to 90% of the mail that arrives in my mail box is
> > charity soliciting. I get at least one each day, sometimes 4 or more.
>
> > Some of them send packages *mail return address stickers, Christmas
> > cards, calenders, key fops, and other useless crap and enclose a bill.
> > Some people are dumb enough to actually pay for the stuff, not realizing
> > that you are under no obligation to pay for unsolicited goods. And once
> > you pay..... wham! You are on their sucker list and you get more and
> > more beg letters and unsolicited goods with bills.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Keep the goods and do not pay. They stop once you do that.
>
> JB

HAH! I have tons of note cards, labels, note pads, dream catchers,
angel pins, and nickels and pennies that the ones I don't and won't
give money to send me. Also world maps, prayer flags, etc.etc.etc.

I donate to 10 charities, tell them all to write to me no more than
once a year, and most of them comply. Each one has an 80% or better
rate of spending for their cause.

maxine in ri

BigDog1 wrote:

don't attend "diversity training", I told HR that participation in
>> such social engineering activities is against my religion.
>
> Neither do I. But I told my supervisor that such mass "mandatory"
> training is politically correct bull-shit and a waste of my work
> time. Unless he wanted to articulate something about my demeanor or
> interaction with my coworkers that suggests I need that type of
> training, or tell me about a complaint from someone, I'd stay at my
> work station. Two review cycles with maximum merit pay increases, and
> I've yet to suffer any negative impact.

In some jobs there is a time and place for courses and meetings. My job
involved a wide range of training programs and meetings. We could count
on at least 4 weeks of training per year. Most of it was essential to
our job because we had to deal with changes in legislation and
standards. Personally, I enjoyed it, but my issue was the timing. I
worked outside and had performance requirements, and working in truck
and bus inspections, I had to deal with weather. I resented being sent
on courses in spring and fall, which provided the most favourable
weather conditions. I didn't want to be crawling under trucks in the
middle of winter when it was cold and snowy, and working on summer days
can be very uncomfortable when you have to wear a bullet proof vest and
coveralls that are so bright they generate heat like an oven.

Then there were the nonsense meetings and courses. We went through a
period when the government was in the process of downsizing and
contracting out a lot of our programs and it was inevitable that a lot
of people were going to be losing their jobs. To lubricate that
endeavour, they sent us to special programs about "change and
transition" where they had consultants come in and talk to us about how
change can be good, that people get stuck in jobs where they are really
being fulfilled and that a change in employment can provide a chance to
realize their full potential. That may or may not be true, but when
they start sending you to those types of sessions twice a year for
several years in a row all it does is create a lot of tension for a lot
of people.

The ironic part is that the agenda was that dictates that all civil
servants are lazy and unproductive and that everything is automatically
cheaper and more efficient in the hands of private enterprise. Then
when they break down the cost per unit for the services provided, they
factor in the cost of going to meetings like that to the cost of
providing the courses. They become less efficient because of time away
from the job hearing about how inefficient government is.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> The ironic part is that the agenda was that dictates that all civil
> servants are lazy and unproductive and that everything is automatically
> cheaper and more efficient in the hands of private enterprise. Then
> when they break down the cost per unit for the services provided, they
> factor in the cost of going to meetings like that to the cost of
> providing the courses. They become less efficient because of time away
> from the job hearing about how inefficient government is.

Sounds like a Dilbert comic strip.

On Oct 23, 12:28*pm, notbob > wrote:
> On 2008-10-23, BigDog1 > wrote:
>
> > work station. *Two review cycles with maximum merit pay increases, and
> > I've yet to suffer any negative impact.
>
> Some are not so fortunate. *Despite my last company's very enlightened HR
> policies, evil still abounds. *Several employees, all of whom worked for the
> same mgr, won a significant lawsuit against the company. *They all claimed
> they were let go ...of course other reasons were given.... for refusing to
> attend self improvement seminars the mgr endorsed. *I forget which one, EST,
> Rolf, Scientology, etc. *One of those bullshit improvement scams that
> charge mucho $$$.
>
> nb

Kudos to them. That sort of thing so wring on it's face that I imagine
once they decided to sue they had lawyers falling all over themselves
to take the case.