In article >,
Kathleen > wrote:

> sf wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 09:41:01 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Frankly, garnishment doesn't work very well. The first response of an
> >>employer is often to fire the employee.
> >
> >
> > Why would that happen? It doesn't seem legal!
>
> Because people with serious issues in their financial lives frequently
> also have issues as employees. Transportation, attendance, attitude...
> And when they impose an additional burden on their employers in the
> form of administering a garnishment, it runs out just that much more of
> their slack.

Also, many of these people work in low paid retail jobs. If they are so
financially desperate that they are having their wages garnished, they
are possibly desperate enough to steal. What better place to steal than
retail? It's already pretty rampant.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Dan Abel wrote:
> In article >,
> Kathleen > wrote:
>
>> sf wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 09:41:01 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Frankly, garnishment doesn't work very well. The first response of an
>>>> employer is often to fire the employee.
>>>
>>> Why would that happen? It doesn't seem legal!
>> Because people with serious issues in their financial lives frequently
>> also have issues as employees. Transportation, attendance, attitude...
>> And when they impose an additional burden on their employers in the
>> form of administering a garnishment, it runs out just that much more of
>> their slack.
>
> Also, many of these people work in low paid retail jobs. If they are so
> financially desperate that they are having their wages garnished, they
> are possibly desperate enough to steal. What better place to steal than
> retail? It's already pretty rampant.
>

Dan - I will guess you just haven't been informed lately. But many
companies are hurting the people that work for them on the amount of
salary they make. Many of my friends have had the choice of take a
voluntary reduction of 15%, or they can hit the streets.

Not a retail issue, but I think many peeps are having pain points here.
They are either fired, or they are dealing with reductions in pay, or
that and reductions in benefits. Sometimes both.

Keep your ears open Dan

/not trying to be mean.

Kathleen wrote:
>sf wrote:
>> Dan Abel wrote:
>>
>>>Frankly, garnishment doesn't work very well. The first response of an
>>>employer is often to fire the employee.
>>
>> Why would that happen? It doesn't seem legal!
>
>Because people with serious issues in their financial lives frequently
>also have issues as employees. Transportation, attendance, attitude...

That's not true. Folks who don't have financial issues are actually
more likely to be problematic employess, they can more afford to lose
their job.

> And when they impose an additional burden on their employers in the
>form of administering a garnishment, it runs out just that much more of
>their slack.

You're just guessing. It's no more a burdon to remit the garnishment
to the courts as to pay the employee with direct deposit... today most
payroll is computer generated anyway.

In many states it's illegal to terminate an employee for that reason
alone once the courts pronounce a wage garnishment, and the employer
must collect, record, and send the money to the appropriate court.
Unemployed deadbeats aren't garnished, can't get blood from a stone...
instead a judgement is issued and folks are left to find some other
way to collect.

In NYS many people elect to have their wages garnished as proof
they've paid... many don't cash the checks so they can bring someone
back to court for non-payment in hopes of getting an increase in
support payments, a very common scam.

On Oct 6, 7:17*pm, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
> Gloria P wrote:
> > Does a political fund raiser think his phone solicitation
> > is more attractive if he's eating something during the call?
>
> Being that they're likely on the phone a lot, how can they
> miss how awful chewing sounds on the other end of the
> phone? * EWWW
>
> nancy *

What if one put hand over the microphone or move the microphone away
from the mouth area when chewing. I have done that with some friends
who just talked and talked and talked. If I didn't listen at that
time, I;d have to later anyway..
This way, my time wasn't completely wasted.

Kathleen wrote:

> sf wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 09:41:01 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Frankly, garnishment doesn't work very well. The first response of
>>> an employer is often to fire the employee.
>>
>>
>> Why would that happen? It doesn't seem legal!
>
> Because people with serious issues in their financial lives frequently
> also have issues as employees. Transportation, attendance,
> attitude...


Nope, numerous studies have shown that this simply is not true...their is no
correlation between indebtiness and employee performance.

But that's the "mantra" the "powers-that-be" want the public to believe,
this issue has been in the news lately because of the increased use of
credit reports as a criteria for hiring, etc...


--
Best
Greg

Gregory Morrow wrote:

> Kathleen wrote:
>
>
>> sf wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 09:41:01 -0700, Dan Abel >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Frankly, garnishment doesn't work very well. The first
>>>> response of an employer is often to fire the employee.
>>>
>>>
>>> Why would that happen? It doesn't seem legal!
>>
>> Because people with serious issues in their financial lives
>> frequently also have issues as employees. Transportation,
>> attendance, attitude...
>
>
>
> Nope, numerous studies have shown that this simply is not
> true...their is no correlation between indebtiness and employee
> performance.
>
> But that's the "mantra" the "powers-that-be" want the public to
> believe, this issue has been in the news lately because of the
> increased use of credit reports as a criteria for hiring, etc...
>
>

Bullshit. Having processed payroll myself, and later supervised it, I
can tell you that the "mantra" is true.

When you're broke, your car gets repo-ed or you can't afford to fix it
when it breaks. And the baby-sitter quits because she hasn't been paid
in three weeks (some people are just unreasonable that way). And then
somebody gets sick and you have to spend half a day waiting for care
because you're using the ER as your primary provider.

And then you're a half hour late for your shift twice a week because
your ride or your daycare didn't show up...

And THEN your employer gets strapped with a wad of extra administrative
paperwork that has to be dealt with on a semi-weekly basis.

Guess who's just run out another foot of his or her nearly non-existent
slack?

I'm not saying it's fair or that I like it, it's just how it is.

Kathleen wrote:

> Gregory Morrow wrote:
>
>> Kathleen wrote:
>>
>>
>>> sf wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 09:41:01 -0700, Dan Abel >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Frankly, garnishment doesn't work very well. The first
>>>>> response of an employer is often to fire the employee.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why would that happen? It doesn't seem legal!
>>>
>>> Because people with serious issues in their financial lives
>>> frequently also have issues as employees. Transportation,
>>> attendance, attitude...
>>
>>
>>
>> Nope, numerous studies have shown that this simply is not
>> true...their is no correlation between indebtiness and employee
>> performance.
>>
>> But that's the "mantra" the "powers-that-be" want the public to
>> believe, this issue has been in the news lately because of the
>> increased use of credit reports as a criteria for hiring, etc...
>>
>>
>
> Bullshit. Having processed payroll myself, and later supervised it, I
> can tell you that the "mantra" is true.
>
> When you're broke, your car gets repo-ed or you can't afford to fix it
> when it breaks. And the baby-sitter quits because she hasn't been
> paid in three weeks (some people are just unreasonable that way).
> And then somebody gets sick and you have to spend half a day waiting
> for care because you're using the ER as your primary provider.
>
> And then you're a half hour late for your shift twice a week because
> your ride or your daycare didn't show up...
>
> And THEN your employer gets strapped with a wad of extra
> administrative paperwork that has to be dealt with on a semi-weekly
> basis.
>
> Guess who's just run out another foot of his or her nearly
> non-existent slack?
>
> I'm not saying it's fair or that I like it, it's just how it is.


You need to find a better business...or simply hire peeps with no kids...

:-)


--
Best
Greg

In article >,
Kathleen > wrote:


> Bullshit. Having processed payroll myself, and later supervised it, I
> can tell you that the "mantra" is true.

Let's be careful about which "mantra" we are talking about. There are
people who have a lot more debt than I would be comfortable with, but
who manage it just fine. These are not the people who get a
garnishment. The part I snipped out was about the lack of correlation
between amount of debt and work performance. That could well be true.
What I think you and I are discussing is the correlation between
inability to manage debt and inability to manage work.

> When you're broke, your car gets repo-ed or you can't afford to fix it
> when it breaks. And the baby-sitter quits because she hasn't been paid
> in three weeks (some people are just unreasonable that way).

Yup, all sorts of unreasonable people. My wife was mostly at home with
the kids. One week she went somewhere. I forget the details, but the
lady around the corner needed money and watched our son's best friend
anyway, so she was happy to help for a week. One day I went to pick up
my son, and the lady had a complaint. She was watching a third kid, who
lived right across the street from her. He was a nice kid, and friends
with both the other kids. However, when the dad came home, the
caregiver would watch him hustle a couple of six packs of beer into the
house before he came to pick up his son. And then, he would explain
that he just didn't have any money so he couldn't pay her. So she was
going to cut them off. If they couldn't pay, don't bother bringing the
kid over.

> I'm not saying it's fair or that I like it, it's just how it is.

There's a job to be done, and people who get a garnishment aren't adding
to their worth as an employee.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

In article >,
Sqwertz > wrote:

> On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 15:16:27 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:
>
> > They do it all the time. My brother just retired from many years working
> > for a collection agency and he was in court several times each week. I
> > don't have problems with collection agencies because I pay my bills.
> > However, I once had a guy from my brother's company calling me. It
> > wasn't me he wanted. He was looking for the people who used to live
> > above me in the fourplex I was living in. They had moved out months
> > earlier. I hardly knew them because they had moved out shortly after we
> > moved in.
>
> You must have done something to **** them off in such a short time
> if they gave their creditors *your* phone number.

I think this is an old story. Back in those days, every collection
place had a reverse directory (you look up the address, it gives you the
phone number) and people usually didn't have unlisted numbers (you had
to pay extra back then for that).

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Dan Abel wrote:

> I think this is an old story. Back in those days, every collection
> place had a reverse directory (you look up the address, it gives you the
> phone number) and people usually didn't have unlisted numbers (you had
> to pay extra back then for that).
>
You still have to pay extra for unlisted here. I'm not willing to pay to
have it so the phone company here allows you to list yourself any way
you choose so.... my phone is in my (now deceased) dogs name.

> Dan Abel wrote:
>
> I think this is an old story. Back in those days, every collection
> place had a reverse directory (you look up the address, it gives you
> the phone number) and people usually didn't have unlisted numbers (you
> had to pay extra back then for that).
>



Through the years most of the cities I've lived in have had "City
Directories" published by a company called Polk.

They were huge, like an unabridged dictionary, and had sections
variously listing people by last name, or you could look up an
address and see who lived there, or a telephone number to see who
it was assigned to.

gloria p

Sqwertz wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 18:24:03 -0400, Goomba wrote:
>
>> You still have to pay extra for unlisted here. I'm not willing to pay to
>> have it so the phone company here allows you to list yourself any way
>> you choose so.... my phone is in my (now deceased) dogs name.
>
> Does you deceased dog get any credit card offers?
>
> -sw


No, but my husband's aunt still gets solicitations for funds from
the Republican party and every other right wing organization
(including the John Birch Society.) She died in 1999.

They have our address for her because my husband was her executor.

gloria p

Gloria P wrote:
> Through the years most of the cities I've lived in have had "City
> Directories" published by a company called Polk.
>
> They were huge, like an unabridged dictionary, and had sections
> variously listing people by last name, or you could look up an address
> and see who lived there, or a telephone number to see who it was
> assigned to.
>
> gloria p

My late MIL owned a credit bureau and she used Polk books. Those books
are quite pricey, and you might find one at your local library. She
also sold names/addresses to companies and she had a division that
repossessed cars. The Polk books listed your address, if you owned or
rented, where you were employed, how many people lived in the house and
their ages. The book also listed phone numbers beginning with the
lowest number and continuing onward (555-0001, 555-0002, 555-0003, etc).


Becca

Thanks Andy... my kids always seem to know about things I consider
news, but I'll tell them about this anyway.


---------

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 05:32:52 -0500, Andy > wrote:

>sf said...
>>>
>> Waving back! Tell me more about this "purchased software"... what is
>> it called and is it specifically for Blackberry?
>
>
>sf,
>
>The software is specifically for Apple's iPhone. No doubt something similar
>surely exist for the blackberry. It's called iBlacklist. Does lots of
>stuff:
>
>* Blacklists * Whitelists * schedules to answer or not by time of every day
>* answering options to return a busy signal, send to voice mail etc. *
>block call ID with fewer than X digits * reviewable history of blacklisted
>activity * easy Address book only answering toggle * multiple lists makes
>it easy to toggle off work, turn on family and friends, etc. *
>black/whitelist SMS and MMS messages with the same features and ease * and
>without writing the entire user manual, MORE!
>
>Two additional iPhone features I like are the visual voice mail. You can
>see a list of voice mail messages and listen to them in any order you
>choose by tapping the ones you want to listen to, not all of them
>sequentially.
>
>The other feature is picture Call ID. If I attach a photo to a person in my
>Contacts (address book) app, and they call, instead of a name and phone
>number, their photo pops up instead.
>
>Best,
>
>Andy
>OB Food: PB&J sandwiches and milk breakfast


--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

Geez, sf, is life that boring on camels across the Sahara?

Who am I kidding? Of course it is!!!

Best,

Andy


sf said...

> Thanks Andy... my kids always seem to know about things I consider
> news, but I'll tell them about this anyway.
>
>
> ---------
>
> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 05:32:52 -0500, Andy > wrote:
>
>>sf said...
>>>>
>>> Waving back! Tell me more about this "purchased software"... what is
>>> it called and is it specifically for Blackberry?
>>
>>
>>sf,
>>
>>The software is specifically for Apple's iPhone. No doubt something
>>similar surely exist for the blackberry. It's called iBlacklist. Does
>>lots of stuff:
>>
>>* Blacklists * Whitelists * schedules to answer or not by time of every
>>day * answering options to return a busy signal, send to voice mail etc.
>>* block call ID with fewer than X digits * reviewable history of
>>blacklisted activity * easy Address book only answering toggle *
>>multiple lists makes it easy to toggle off work, turn on family and
>>friends, etc. * black/whitelist SMS and MMS messages with the same
>>features and ease * and without writing the entire user manual, MORE!
>>
>>Two additional iPhone features I like are the visual voice mail. You can
>>see a list of voice mail messages and listen to them in any order you
>>choose by tapping the ones you want to listen to, not all of them
>>sequentially.
>>
>>The other feature is picture Call ID. If I attach a photo to a person in
>>my Contacts (address book) app, and they call, instead of a name and
>>phone number, their photo pops up instead.
>>
>>Best,
>>
>>Andy
>>OB Food: PB&J sandwiches and milk breakfast
>
>



--
I don't play games people play