On Sun, 9 Jan 2011 12:33:50 -0500, Spoofer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On 1/9/11 12:17 PM, YukonBound wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Jan 2011 10:30:06 -0500, Spoofer wrote:

In article ,
says...

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 08 Jan 2011 11:40:10 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 18:17:09 -0800, wrote:

On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 19:07:48 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 15:22:26 -0800, wrote:

You are again just finding cases where people lost their desks
and it
goes into great detail explaining how they got relocated.

You claimed that federal workers don't get fired. I provided
numerous
examples. Sorry if you can't handle it.

Go back and read my original note again. I said they can't get
fired
as long as they show up for work and they don't get caught
stealing.
You gave us one example of the PATA guys being fired for not
showing
up at work.
It is a violation of the law that allows a federal union for the
members to strike. That is black letter law.
They should have all been fired. There may even be criminal
penalties
attached.


The rest of your links only talked about the extraordinary lengths
they go to relocate people when their agency closes.

You also linked articles about the shutdowns and they all ended up
with everyone keeping their jobs.

I suppose you could say the Walkers got fired but they stole
national
secrets.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...mcain-federal/


Exactly, you posted an article that said what I have been saying. A
few people got fired for coming in drunk and punching out the boss.
That is not a layoff, that is a criminal act.

http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=35&sid=1995749

Losing their security clearance

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...-blowers_x.htm


Stealing and disclosing confidential information.

You seem to think that it's an uncommon private business practice to
not attempt to place workers in other jobs. Big companies do this
all
the time. While it's more difficult to fire Fed employees, it's not
impossible. Please show us some numbers that support all the
"incompetence" of Fed workers. Seems to me they mostly do a good
job.

Most federal employees do try to do a good job, the point is it is
hard to get rid of the ones who don't. The first article in this post
demonstrates that. Getting fired for being drunk and punching the
boss
is not the same as just being lazy and not working. I agree that is a
fairly small percentage but seeing that lowers the morale of the rest
of the work force and lowers overall productivity.

Yes, it's hard. No, it's not impossible to fire a Fed employee.

It's just as high of a percentage in the corporate world. In fact, it
might even be worse there. Laziness typically lowers morale and
productivity, but that's not unique to Fed workers. Large companies
have the same problem.

Damn straight! Just go ask Scotties former employers.

Another post from you with nothing in it but stupidity.

I suppose he meant to say 'Scotty's' and will probably say that
'Scotties' was
just a 'typo'.

Right.

He's filterable, BTW.

Hey... did you read that thread where the poster claimed the only people
interested in his sporty Chrysler/Dodge were 13 year old boys.
Same true for a yellow Mustang?


Actually, it was the 16-year-old girls who liked the yellow mustang. A
neighbor's kid down the street has one, though not in yellow. Her father
took me for a ride in it...it's a real butt-buster, feels like it has no
suspension travel.

Must be that your fat ass bottomed it out.

Actually, my first 300 mile trip in mine was all I could take. That was a $6000
lesson in what *not* to buy!

But, if I had a pink RAV4, I'd sure not be talking about anyone else's car!!

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 10:38:05 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 23:54:27 -0800, wrote:

It is clear you have never worked in a right to work state.
All they need to do is say they don't need you anymore and tell you to
stop coming in. The worst case is they have to pay your unemployment
if they can't make a "with cause" case. (basically 3 strikes will do
it)

I've only worked in Cali. It's only ranked #1 in population, so it
must be an exception. It's at-will employment, and firing someone
without cause can get you in trouble.

Most of the rest of the country is not that way, Are you really trying
to say there were no layoffs in California?

Most states are employment-at-will states. Before going further, you
should read the following, which is pretty good summary.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...t_to_work.html

As for "cause", it usually only required having the right
documentation. You give them a written warning, then you put them on
written notice, on the 3d strike you can fire them. That was even true
in the old 60s "big family" IBM.
For most jobs in a right to work state you can just fire someone if
you don't like their face. The only issue is whether you have to pay
the unemployment. (your tax rate is based on how many people you lay
off without cause)

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 08:11:28 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 19:41:08 -0800, wrote:

And the goal posts move again. I guess you are done.

I haven't changed one millimeter from what I originally said. Look it
up.

You have moved from how easy it was to fire a civil service worker to
how hard it is supposed to be to fire a private industry worker (there
are about 15 million of them who would disagree) and ended up at how
hard it is to get rid of a CEO.
CEOs aren't even that hard to get rid of. Most don't last 5 years,
particularly if they can't keep up the stock price. They just get a
better buyout than the rest of us.

dePlume is an idiot. She doesn't understand the concept of at will
employment. For someone who is supposed lawyer she doesn't understand
the basic concepts of contracts or contract law.



Yes, that's your solution when you don't understand something isn't
it... just call someone a name.

You're such a mature guy. I bet you fit right in with the crazies with
whom you hang out.

YukonBound wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Jan 2011 10:30:06 -0500, Spoofer wrote:

In article ,
says...

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 08 Jan 2011 11:40:10 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 18:17:09 -0800, wrote:

On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 19:07:48 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 15:22:26 -0800, wrote:

You are again just finding cases where people lost their
desks and it
goes into great detail explaining how they got relocated.

You claimed that federal workers don't get fired. I provided
numerous
examples. Sorry if you can't handle it.

Go back and read my original note again. I said they can't get
fired
as long as they show up for work and they don't get caught
stealing.
You gave us one example of the PATA guys being fired for not
showing
up at work.
It is a violation of the law that allows a federal union for the
members to strike. That is black letter law.
They should have all been fired. There may even be criminal
penalties
attached.


The rest of your links only talked about the extraordinary lengths
they go to relocate people when their agency closes.

You also linked articles about the shutdowns and they all ended up
with everyone keeping their jobs.

I suppose you could say the Walkers got fired but they stole
national
secrets.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...mcain-federal/


Exactly, you posted an article that said what I have been saying. A
few people got fired for coming in drunk and punching out the boss.
That is not a layoff, that is a criminal act.

http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=35&sid=1995749

Losing their security clearance

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...-blowers_x.htm


Stealing and disclosing confidential information.

You seem to think that it's an uncommon private business
practice to
not attempt to place workers in other jobs. Big companies do
this all
the time. While it's more difficult to fire Fed employees, it's not
impossible. Please show us some numbers that support all the
"incompetence" of Fed workers. Seems to me they mostly do a good
job.

Most federal employees do try to do a good job, the point is it is
hard to get rid of the ones who don't. The first article in this
post
demonstrates that. Getting fired for being drunk and punching the
boss
is not the same as just being lazy and not working. I agree that
is a
fairly small percentage but seeing that lowers the morale of the
rest
of the work force and lowers overall productivity.

Yes, it's hard. No, it's not impossible to fire a Fed employee.

It's just as high of a percentage in the corporate world. In
fact, it
might even be worse there. Laziness typically lowers morale and
productivity, but that's not unique to Fed workers. Large companies
have the same problem.

Damn straight! Just go ask Scotties former employers.

Another post from you with nothing in it but stupidity.

I suppose he meant to say 'Scotty's' and will probably say that
'Scotties' was
just a 'typo'.

Right.

He's filterable, BTW.

Hey... did you read that thread where the poster claimed the only
people interested in his sporty Chrysler/Dodge were 13 year old boys.
Same true for a yellow Mustang?
Your jealousy is painfully obvious, dummy.