Occupyer's Confronted With Job Offers.

[Apocalypse]

In Chicago they started littering the OWS'ers there with McDonalds applications :D LMFAO

LOL

But they probably are turning around and using it as TP now that they are banned from using the rest rooms near by.

[Tipsycatlover]

It's not at all surprising that the shitters would be insulted by offers of work. The homeless have been insulted by work forever.

[fettpett]

LOL

But they probably are turning around and using it as TP now that they are banned from using the rest rooms near by.

maybe, but they seem like the "we demand Charmin" types :D

[Apocalypse]

maybe, but they seem like the "we demand Charmin" types :D

Personally, replace it all with that value TP from Walmart of Sams Club. Its like $0.20 a roll and feels like sandpaper when wiping. That will put a new rash on their baby bottoms. :D

[Rockntractor]

maybe, but they seem like the "we demand Charmin" types :D

The leader in Denver just slides his butt on the lawn!

[fettpett]

Personally, replace it all with that value TP from Walmart of Sams Club. Its like $0.20 a roll and feels like sandpaper when wiping. That will put a new rash on their baby bottoms. :D

that or Scotts /shudder

[fettpett]

The leader in Denver just slides his butt on the lawn!

oh, come on now, he's just being Green :D

maybe give them a few pots of this:


:D

[Articulate_Ape]

Those people are absolutely useless. They could all drop dead and the only people that would give a shit (for a day) would be the folks who have to sweep up their worthless carcasses.

[Wei Wu Wei]

I remember one of my co-workers going to Subway after getting fired from where we were at. She had a husband and a sick kid to support. She said they gave her all the hours she wanted. The right fast food place will often give you enough hours to support your family.

However, one of the primary problems with a lot of fast food places and retail is that they literally refuse to hire full time in most cases. I think the best thing to do is to work for those places until they give you full time work or until you find it elsewhere. That's where *I* sort of think a lot of companies are greedy, their refusal to hire anybody full time. And people can fuss all you want at me, it won't change my opinion.

Now, back to the protesters. Besides the fact that some of the jobs won't be enough to support their family (although some money is better than no money), the truth is they're sticking their noses up at banks and the Department of Defense. What they don't realize is that common, every day people work for these places. I'm currently trying to get into a health care company into the customer service section because I want that permanent, full time work I'm talking about. I told one of my liberal friends about it, and he joked around about "Good luck with the evil empire." I know it was a joke, but he meant it. It's like that head hunter said though, you can change things from the inside. Imagine if I became the CEO of a major healthcare company. Then, in thirty years, I could run for President presenting my CEO expertise as the reason I know stuff about the economy. Watch the Republicans throw a fit....

"changing things from the inside" doesn't work, it's idealistic. It's not individual people making bad decisions that are the way they are, the problems are systemic. If a system makes decisions that are bad for their workers, its not because they have someone working at the top who just hates workers, it's because they are legally obligated to respond to their shareholders, they are obligated to keep their profits up, and sometimes the interests of the shareholders are contrary to the interests of the workers.

If what's good for shareholders is not what's good for the workers, the shareholders will always win out in this system, if you get hired as CEO or CFO for this company, and you start changing things so that the workers benefit at the expense of the shareholders, you will not have that job for long.

Changing things from the inside, without addressing the structural issues within which you are working, is doomed to fail.


I really like the idea of Germany's Codetermination law, that requires management boards to be split 50/50, with half of the people on the board representing shareholders, and half ot the people on the board representing workers.

This law takes the natural antagonism between owners and workers into account.

Idealists will say "well workers can always just become shareholders", but that ignores the reality of the situation. Most people working for fast food or other low-paying jobs barely make enough money to support themselves or their families, they simply do not make enough money and do not have enough benefits or security to save and invest enough money to really do this. Some people maybe, but most low-payed workers can not.

The evidence of this is clear from looking at the distribution of stock ownership. The top 1% and 10% own nearly all of the financial assets like stocks in the country, the bottom 50% owns nearly none of it. The people working these jobs are in the bottom 50% (or even lower, the bottom 25%), and they own a tiny fraction of a percent of the financial wealth.

So suggesting that subway workers simply purchase subway stock in order to level it out totally ignores the reality of the situation today.

[Odysseus]

I really like the idea of Germany's Codetermination law, that requires management boards to be split 50/50, with half of the people on the board representing shareholders, and half ot the people on the board representing workers.

So, if a worker owns shares, which side of the table does he sit on? Seriously. Bill Gates and the rest of the Microsoft founders were shareholders and workers until the company took off. They worked their asses off, and under the German rule, they'd have to give up half of the votes to a bunch of people who were only hired after they had built the company up. So much for "economic justice."

This law takes the natural antagonism between owners and workers into account.

What natural antagonism are you talking about? A situation in which someone purchases my services in return for providing me with the means to support myself and my family is a mutually beneficial relationship, not an antagonistic one. Unions exploit workers in order to gain leverage over corporations that otherwise wouldn't give them the time of day. Without the Teamsters, the Hoffas would have been petty thugs, but put them in charge of a union, and they become rich petty thugs.

Idealists will say "well workers can always just become shareholders", but that ignores the reality of the situation. Most people working for fast food or other low-paying jobs barely make enough money to support themselves or their families, they simply do not make enough money and do not have enough benefits or security to save and invest enough money to really do this. Some people maybe, but most low-payed workers can not.

But the "reality of the situation" is that most people don't work in the fast food sector, and those that do tend to be entry level workers doing their first jobs.

The evidence of this is clear from looking at the distribution of stock ownership. The top 1% and 10% own nearly all of the financial assets like stocks in the country, the bottom 50% owns nearly none of it. The people working these jobs are in the bottom 50% (or even lower, the bottom 25%), and they own a tiny fraction of a percent of the financial wealth.

So suggesting that subway workers simply purchase subway stock in order to level it out totally ignores the reality of the situation today.

Bull. 49.5% (or 52.7 million) of US Households owned stock as of 2002. Those who don't own stock, either through their retirement accounts or directly, may own other types of property. A small business owner may not own stock in somebody else's company, but he owns equity in his own business. I don't own any stocks at the moment, but I do own a house. Your numbers are, as always, erroneous in their substance and in your interpretation.