conservation of Euros
in [Design]
|
Prev: conservation of Euros
Next: Thanks to the group
From: John Larkin on 20 May 2010 17:53 On Thu, 20 May 2010 22:14:05 +0100, Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >On 20/05/2010 21:44, John Larkin wrote: >> On Thu, 20 May 2010 08:24:09 +0100, Martin Brown >> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >> >>> Equally the employer should treat employees fairly and not be entitled >>> to hire and fire on a whim in the way that seems so common in the USA. >> >> Employees can walk out on zero notice, leaving projects in random >> states. And they sometimes do. How about some symmetry? > >I agree. Don't you have written contracts of employment? Our Constitution abolished slavery. I can't compel anyone to work. And if I could, I couldn't trust their quality. > >In the UK that symmetry exists at least on paper in many contracts of >employment. When I worked for a corporate I was on 3 months notice (for >either side - it might have been 6 months for the company later on) and >my boss when he decided to leave was forced to work out his notice. How do you force someone to work? What happens if they don't? What happens if they work very, very badly? It seems simpler to me if an employer can hire and fire at will (as we can in California) and an employee can take a job or quit as he chooses. Let people make deals. Employment contracts are rare here. John
From: Greegor on 20 May 2010 18:08 G > In the US, your arguments and reasoning G > are more typical of the occasional misfit G > usually 17 or 18 years old and struggling G > for IDENTITY, and going for shock value Okkim Atnarivik wrote OA > You don't seriously compare an american OA > teenager to Sloman? Yes, The occasional inexperienced misfit teenager. Most of those grow out of it with experience. OA > His points, even though I may not agree OA > with every detail, are as a general rule OA > very well argued. As in a high school debate society, you mean? Judge Roland Friesler had an impeccable legal mind. Look up what he was famous for! OA > I'm glad that he takes time to cast doubt OA > on stereotypical OT nonsense which now OA > and then appears in this group. Kids may OA > be readlng these posts, and would take OA > all sorts of propaganda as actual facts if OA > nobody countered. Having said that, I'm OA > also glad that Mr. Larkin challenges OA > Sloman's opinions, reasonably often fact based. OA > OA > I said 'cast doubt' because nobody is under OA > obligation to accept blindly any of the OA > claims made by anybody. OA > OA > Now I must get back to productive work and OA > earn some more euros to be shoveled to Greece... From Finland? Is that where you get your sense of humor?
From: krw on 20 May 2010 18:50 On Thu, 20 May 2010 13:37:04 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Thu, 20 May 2010 10:14:00 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com >wrote: > >>On May 20, 9:57 am, John Larkin wrote: >>> Bill Sloman wrote: >> >> >>> >You might be better off turning the company into a cooperative. At >>> >least that way the poeple who inherit the company will have some >>> >understanding of how it works and why it works that way. >> >>Ah yes, free love and drugs for everyone. >> >>> There was a fad in the '70s around here, centered in Berkeley of >>> course, for co-op buisnesses; I still have a couple of the books, like >>> "We Own It!" It was an interesting experiment. There seemed to be two >>> available outcomes, sad failures and hilarious failures. >>> >>> A very few are still around. There's a co-op bakery on 9th avenue, not >>> bad stuff actually. They close down one day a week just to meet and >>> talk. And talk. And talk. I hear that it's painful for the majority. >> >> >>I saw a cool thing on PBS just a few days ago about that era. >> >>A fellow was explaining how he and a bunch of fellow college students >>with liberal educations surged out, full of energy and socialist >>utopianism. They fled to the hills (e.g. Foxfire), to live together >>in peace, equality, and free love. A commune, where all is fair and >>free. >> >>They quickly learned just throwing seeds in the ground did not a farm >>make, and that equality sucked. The chicks split, and then the guys >>soon after. >> >>The guy winced, sheepishly, explaining/defending: they'd had their >>eyes opened, only wasted two years doing it, and didn't hurt anyone in >>the process... >> >>James > >I was just talking to Phil Hobbs about that recently. He pointed out >that bad management is better than no management. At least it gets >everybody pulling in the same direction. Opposite management? It's not good going in the opposite direction as the guy with the purse, either.
From: Joerg on 20 May 2010 19:35 Spehro Pefhany wrote: [...] > Ewww. Of course the map on the Garmin might not have been updated, so > it might not be any different an outcome. I see people get lost all > the time nearby where they recently changed from a cramped half > cloverleaf interchange to a more spacious half cloverleaf. Their GPSs > are telling them to make a right, and it's a left now. > About 10 years ago a UPS shipment didn't arrive. Got the tracking number, entered it ... "3 failed delivery attempts" ... Hurumph! Nobody had bothered to call me. When I called they said my address is invalid. I informed them that this street was on maps since the late 60's and whether they could reprogram their time machine to the year 2000 or whatever it was. Or stop at the local gas station and buy a non-electronic map, a real map. The package was delivered prontissimo and this time, tada, they found our street. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: John Larkin on 20 May 2010 20:18
On Thu, 20 May 2010 17:50:15 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >On Thu, 20 May 2010 13:37:04 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Thu, 20 May 2010 10:14:00 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com >>wrote: >> >>>On May 20, 9:57 am, John Larkin wrote: >>>> Bill Sloman wrote: >>> >>> >>>> >You might be better off turning the company into a cooperative. At >>>> >least that way the poeple who inherit the company will have some >>>> >understanding of how it works and why it works that way. >>> >>>Ah yes, free love and drugs for everyone. >>> >>>> There was a fad in the '70s around here, centered in Berkeley of >>>> course, for co-op buisnesses; I still have a couple of the books, like >>>> "We Own It!" It was an interesting experiment. There seemed to be two >>>> available outcomes, sad failures and hilarious failures. >>>> >>>> A very few are still around. There's a co-op bakery on 9th avenue, not >>>> bad stuff actually. They close down one day a week just to meet and >>>> talk. And talk. And talk. I hear that it's painful for the majority. >>> >>> >>>I saw a cool thing on PBS just a few days ago about that era. >>> >>>A fellow was explaining how he and a bunch of fellow college students >>>with liberal educations surged out, full of energy and socialist >>>utopianism. They fled to the hills (e.g. Foxfire), to live together >>>in peace, equality, and free love. A commune, where all is fair and >>>free. >>> >>>They quickly learned just throwing seeds in the ground did not a farm >>>make, and that equality sucked. The chicks split, and then the guys >>>soon after. >>> >>>The guy winced, sheepishly, explaining/defending: they'd had their >>>eyes opened, only wasted two years doing it, and didn't hurt anyone in >>>the process... >>> >>>James >> >>I was just talking to Phil Hobbs about that recently. He pointed out >>that bad management is better than no management. At least it gets >>everybody pulling in the same direction. > >Opposite management? It's not good going in the opposite direction as the guy >with the purse, either. The context of the discussion is that humans evolved in tribal/family groups that needed to be coordinated and organized for survival. So they naturally fell into a hierarchal structure where decisions get made quickly by one leader and everybody gets coordinated. In that sense, any randomly chosen leader is better than none, and in fact most people *want* a leader and really don't want to be one. It would be difficult to settle on a chief if everybody wanted to be the chief, so we evolved into, mostly, a race of hero worshippers and order takers. But there has to be a mechanism for picking a leader. People tend to pick tall, big-headed, well-spoken, charismatic people (like Phil) to lead them, whereas it's obvious that short, cute, round-faced people (like me) would be the superior choice. I figured all that out on my second glass of Ron Zacapa 23. Or maybe the third. John |