Political Discussion

Got to love capitalism. What's best for the company and its shareholders is above what's best for employees.

The latest example I have heard is companies doing rolling layoffs. For example, each department has to lay off a 1/4 of their department each week. Every employee is laid off 1 week out of 4 each month as they go through the rotation.

Employees have been told that this is what's best for the company. They can retain skilled labor for when they are ready to gear back up.

But this does not work well for employees in many states because of the mandatory waiting period to start collecting unemployment. Essentially one week off isn't enough to collect anything, and it doesn't matter that the week off repeats every month.

This is resulting in all the employees taking a pay cut and not being able to get unemployment benefits. Which has been a real struggle to many employees and their families.

While yes, retaining the talent can be beneficial, especially when hiring new people means training, one person who works in management at one such company posted about how the company is avoiding paying unemployment claims be doing it this way. And that that is a larger benefit to the company than retaining talent.
 
Djxfactor511 said:
Wonder what additional actions we'll be taking now that the US intel report found Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman responsible for approving Khashoggi assassination.
Click to expand...
Nothing. I still don’t understand why we aligned ourselves so closely with the KSA. For all of the drum beating about Iran sponsoring terrorism, the #1 exporter of the Whahabist brand of Islam that undergirds nearly all of the radical Islamist groups we fight against worldwide is the KSA.

The Saudis are not our friends, but they have paid handsomely for the loyalty of our so-called leaders.
 
Dtknuckles said:
I was interacting on a friend‘s FB post about this. There was a person on there who said the budget was not that simple. It is. You can‘t spend the same resource twice. She ended up being a defense contract auditor.
Click to expand...
Don’t be so literal. I think I may have misread your intent.

The criticism is about priorities, not allocations. It’s the old bait & switch. D voters thought they bought relief checks, but were really sold the same old Middle East military actions.
 
Chucktshoes said:
Don’t be so literal. I think I may have misread your intent.

The criticism is about priorities, not allocations. It’s the old bait & switch. D voters thought they bought relief checks, but were really sold the same old Middle East military actions.
Click to expand...

yea I got you. She was just saying that it’s complicated. I said not it not. We don’t need to spend all the money to bomb a buch of people when we should spend on our own population. There always money for war.
 
Wow, the bill passed with slim margins.

219 for and 215 against.

1614456037712.png

When the current make up of the house I would imagine all republicans voted against it and a couple democrats did as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top