This is why they kneel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

Yes, little old me is responsible for all the corporate malfeasance we've seen. I was responsible for Enron, or WalMart's wages, or Cigarette companies denial of cancer, or Energy companies denial of Global Warming.

It was all me.

Your head is buried so deeply in the sand, you've popped out in China.

---

Bold 1…… Walmart pays low wages for jobs that are worth low wages. Nothing wrong here. (Side Note: Wal mart employs almost 2 million people. Side Note 2: Anyone working at Walmart can quit whenever they want.

Bold 2……Not Everyone believes that global warming can be managed. We all agree that the climate is changing. Many feel that there is little we can do about it. (Side Note 1: Over 6 million peopla re employed in the energy industry. Side Note 2: Anyone working in the industry can quit whenever they want. Side Note 3: The energy industry accounts for almost 8% of the GDP of the US.)

You mention Enron and the cigarette industry and you are correct about that. But we don't know how they treated their employees (which was the topic of this discussion). Be that as it may, I will fully admit that there are bad businesses out there.

There are almost 8 million business out there that have employees. I will grant that there are as many bad business as there are bad policemen, bad priests, bad doctors, bad accountants, bad teachers and bad whatever it is that you do. Human nature being what it is, that would have to be the case.

But all of these "bads" are outliers. The vast majority of businesses (like the vast majority of the other groups) are ethical operations and are concerned about their employees. It's just a fact that I have witnessed from over thirty years of owning a business and multiple years before that as part of senior management of a good sized company. I've also witnessed far more examples of employees screwing companies (or their superiors within those companies) than I have of companies taking advantage of their employees. I could give you numerous examples (some are amazingly generous) but you wouldn't believe me.

You have a bug up your *** about management. Somewhere along the line something must have happened to give you this "insight." Maybe one too many lectures from "Professor Ponytail" (who has one of the cushiest and well paid jobs out there [not to mention safest]). Open you eyes a bit and talk to some people outside your little circle.

An admission: are there bad companies…sure. But they are a huge minority in the grand scheme of things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

Why are they bringing that up at all? Has nothing to do with the murder attempt on him.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

murder attempt? I think you know better.

this is Jacob Blake and it's nothing that deserves anyone to be proud.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGGGG-Men

Racial profiling is ok if you offer them a job afterwards.

Cool PR move that doesn’t mix the broader problem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

this person fit a description.

the police were even nice/respectful in how they acted with him.

Quote:

---

"Hey Buddy, you're not in any trouble or anything. There's a burglary that happened -- you kind of fit the description," an officer is heard saying on body camera footage released by VSO as he gets out of his vehicle and approaches a sweaty Griffin. "Let me just make sure that you're not him," the officer says.

---

Quote:

---

As Griffin pulls out his ID, the officer points to Griffin's attire and says, "Literally they said, white tank top, black shorts and they said that you had a beard."

"So, I'm not saying it's you, but it was a Black male -- again -- not saying it's you, buddy," the officer reiterates.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benny01

I always miss the part of the article where they point out that the president digitally raped a woman.

---

whatabout Trump.

nothing at all to do with this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

I didn’t say the police had no choice but to pull over black people. I said you don’t know if they had a choice in each situation, as per your hypothetical. I said early on that you were making a huge assumption and I was right, so thanks for proving it.

I have no idea why black people were more likely to be searched. Of course you assume it’s racism. Surprise surprise. It could be something as simple as the driver acted different in each situation. Furthermore, given the area, it is more likely that black people would have contraband despite the findings. I’m opposed to drugs being illegal so making them legal would solve a lot of those issues.

---

So the data actually says white people have contraband on them more often and you just completely ignore that to say it could be because black people have more contraband on them?

It sounds like your #1 goal is to deny any possibility of systemic racism no matter what facts are presented to you.

Heck, you still didn't even address why black people required less justification for a search than white people. Shouldn't the justification to search people be the same? Why do you think it was less for black people?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ewing

Fact don’t care about your feelings Joey

(Did I do it right?)

---

Seriously.

"Statistically, white people are more likely to have contraband"

Joey "Maybe the reason black people get searched more is they have more contraband"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sluggo1

Bold 1…… Walmart pays low wages for jobs that are worth low wages. Nothing wrong here. (Side Note: Wal mart employs almost 2 million people. Side Note 2: Anyone working at Walmart can quit whenever they want.

Bold 2……Not Everyone believes that global warming can be managed. We all agree that the climate is changing. Many feel that there is little we can do about it. (Side Note 1: Over 6 million peopla re employed in the energy industry. Side Note 2: Anyone working in the industry can quit whenever they want. Side Note 3: The energy industry accounts for almost 8% of the GDP of the US.)

You mention Enron and the cigarette industry and you are correct about that. But we don't know how they treated their employees (which was the topic of this discussion). Be that as it may, I will fully admit that there are bad businesses out there.

There are almost 8 million business out there that have employees. I will grant that there are as many bad business as there are bad policemen, bad priests, bad doctors, bad accountants, bad teachers and bad whatever it is that you do. Human nature being what it is, that would have to be the case.

But all of these "bads" are outliers. The vast majority of businesses (like the vast majority of the other groups) are ethical operations and are concerned about their employees. It's just a fact that I have witnessed from over thirty years of owning a business and multiple years before that as part of senior management of a good sized company. I've also witnessed far more examples of employees screwing companies (or their superiors within those companies) than I have of companies taking advantage of their employees. I could give you numerous examples (some are amazingly generous) but you wouldn't believe me.

You have a bug up your *** about management. Somewhere along the line something must have happened to give you this "insight." Maybe one too many lectures from "Professor Ponytail" (who has one of the cushiest and well paid jobs out there [not to mention safest]). Open you eyes a bit and talk to some people outside your little circle.

An admission: are there bad companies…sure. But they are a huge minority in the grand scheme of things.

---

Bolded: The vast majority of workers at Enron lost their retirement savings, so we do know how they treated their employees: badly.

But the real problem is summed up by your Walmart defense. You claim Walmart treats their employees nicely and cares about them and also says they pay them low wages because they aren't worth much and if they don't like it they can quit.

If you pay your employees as little as humanely possible, you don't really care about them. If you cared about your employees, you wouldn't be paying them so little the majority need government assistance. And don't tell me it's because Walmart can't afford to pay their employees more. Collectively the Walton's are the richest family on earth. They could pay their employees more, but that would require them making so little they might only be the 2nd richest family on earth. And they can't have that.

So in conclusion: paying your employees as little as possible so you can be the wealthiest family on earth is the exact opposite of caring for your employees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpecialFNK

whatabout Trump.

nothing at all to do with this.

---

How's that? I thought that we were talking about where the information that someone was accused of digital rape appeared in an article.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

Bolded: The vast majority of workers at Enron lost their retirement savings, so we do know how they treated their employees: badly.

But the real problem is summed up by your Walmart defense. You claim Walmart treats their employees nicely and cares about them and also says they pay them low wages because they aren't worth much and if they don't like it they can quit.

If you pay your employees as little as humanely possible, you don't really care about them. If you cared about your employees, you wouldn't be paying them so little the majority need government assistance. And don't tell me it's because Walmart can't afford to pay their employees more. Collectively the Walton's are the richest family on earth. They could pay their employees more, but that would require them making so little they might only be the 2nd richest family on earth. And they can't have that.

So in conclusion: paying your employees as little as possible so you can be the wealthiest family on earth is the exact opposite of caring for your employees.

---

*sigh* WalMart and the Walton family are not the same thing. WalMart is publicly traded and just under 50% of it is owned by not-a-Walton. The Waltons haven't really been involved in day to day operations for decades. So I'm not quite sure how one is necessarily tied to the other given the company has so many other stockholders to appease beyond the family. I also don't know where you get the idea that the majority of their employees need government assistance or even that their average pay is necessarily substandard for the job performed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benny01

How's that? I thought that we were talking about where the information that someone was accused of digital rape appeared in an article.

---

what was the article about? Jacob Blake.

Jacob Blake while in his hospital bed, was restrained. why? because there was a warrant for his arrest.

what are the charges? sexual assault.

this is why he appeared on video in court from his hospital bed.

this is part of Jacob Blake's story right now, and the media shouldn't bury that in an article.

none of this has anything to do with Trump.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiteWolf

*sigh* WalMart and the Walton family are not the same thing. WalMart is publicly traded and just under 50% of it is owned by not-a-Walton. The Waltons haven't really been involved in day to day operations for decades. So I'm not quite sure how one is necessarily tied to the other given the company has so many other stockholders to appease beyond the family. I also don't know where you get the idea that the majority of their employees need government assistance or even that their average pay is necessarily substandard for the job performed.

---

*sigh*

1. The Waltons own the slight majority (50.1%) of all WalMart shares. WalMart keeps their employees wages extremely low so they can provide the highest earnings for their stockholders: i.e. The Waltons (among many other people). So the Walton family is an example of how the employees wages are being kept incredibly low so that they can become incredibly wealthy. Which you can be fine with, but you can't say they care about their employees if they won't pay them decent wages solely so they can obtain give another billion to their already wealthy shareholders.

2. Where do I get the idea the majority of their employees need government assistance? Because they do:

https://www.thenation.com/article/ar...n-food-stamps/

Walmart alone employs 1.4 million minimum-wage workers. Overall, 60 percent of minimum-wage workers are employed by businesses not officially considered “small” by government standards. A single Walmart Supercenter costs taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.75 million per year in public assistance money. in many states Walmart employees are the largest group of Medicaid recipients. They are also the single biggest group of food stamp recipients.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-w...-idUSKCN1IQ295

Part-time workers account for half of Walmart Inc’s workforce, up from 20 percent in 2005. About 60 percent of the part-time workers surveyed also said their hours declined after Walmart launched a new scheduling system in 2016. Fifty-five percent of part-time employees also said they did not have enough food to meet their basic needs. Walmart employees are among the largest groups on food stamp subsidies, according to labor experts


This is quite literally their business model. Rely on government assistance to augment the wages of their employees so they don't have to pay them more. WalMart employees on government assistance is costing taxpayers literally billions every year in order to allow WalMart shareholders to make billions more every year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

*sigh*

1. The Waltons own the slight majority (50.1%) of all WalMart shares. WalMart keeps their employees wages extremely low so they can provide the highest earnings for their stockholders: i.e. The Waltons (among many other people). So the Walton family is an example of how the employees wages are being kept incredibly low so that they can become incredibly wealthy. Which you can be fine with, but you can't say they care about their employees if they won't pay them decent wages solely so they can obtain give another billion to their already wealthy shareholders.

2. Where do I get the idea the majority of their employees need government assistance? Because they do:

https://www.thenation.com/article/ar...n-food-stamps/

Walmart alone employs 1.4 million minimum-wage workers. Overall, 60 percent of minimum-wage workers are employed by businesses not officially considered “small” by government standards. A single Walmart Supercenter costs taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.75 million per year in public assistance money. in many states Walmart employees are the largest group of Medicaid recipients. They are also the single biggest group of food stamp recipients.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-w...-idUSKCN1IQ295

Part-time workers account for half of Walmart Inc’s workforce, up from 20 percent in 2005. About 60 percent of the part-time workers surveyed also said their hours declined after Walmart launched a new scheduling system in 2016. Fifty-five percent of part-time employees also said they did not have enough food to meet their basic needs. Walmart employees are among the largest groups on food stamp subsidies, according to labor experts


This is quite literally their business model. Rely on government assistance to augment the wages of their employees so they don't have to pay them more. WalMart employees on government assistance is costing taxpayers literally billions every year in order to allow WalMart shareholders to make billions more every year.

---

Sigh

Anyone not happy with their salary or wages can quit. It is up to the individual to make themselves more valuable.

We hear the same thing in Florida all the time regarding Walt Disney World. There is just so much you can pay someone to clean a room, drive a bus, cut grass or sweep Main Street. The "imagineers" who crate the attractions get paid pretty well. Make yourself more valuable and you will get more $$$.

What do you think would happen if Walmart of a place like WDW if the execs figured they all made enough $$$$ and just closed everything down and cut people loose??? Unemployment would be unreal.

What someone needs to live on and what a job is worth are two entirely different things. I once had a job applicant for a sales job tell me all about his expenses (house, 2 cars, college, alimony), I could not care less. The job offer was based on the job not hos needs and he passed. That's just the way it is.

You want to make things more equitable………how about restricting the population to a comfortable level (severely limit the number of immigrants, encourage smaller families, stop all the financial incentives for larger families, demand high school education be better and completed, stress trade schools etc.) If there are fewer people for jobs, salaries will go up (as will prices) and the market will adjust itself. The unseen hand theory. As it is now, if someone won't flip burgers for $10 an hour…someone else will. Way you many people out there … and some want open borders.

Sorry, but I just can't feel sorry for those at the low end of the pay scale. Education is free, pregnancy is preventable, and there are jobs everywhere. With all the opportunity and advantages of living in the US…if you can't be successful here, it's on you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sluggo1

Sigh

Anyone not happy with their salary or wages can quit. It is up to the individual to make themselves more valuable.

We hear the same thing in Florida all the time regarding Walt Disney World. There is just so much you can pay someone to clean a room, drive a bus, cut grass or sweep Main Street. The "imagineers" who crate the attractions get paid pretty well. Make yourself more valuable and you will get more $$$.

What do you think would happen if Walmart of a place like WDW if the execs figured they all made enough $$$$ and just closed everything down and cut people loose??? Unemployment would be unreal.

What someone needs to live on and what a job is worth are two entirely different things. I once had a job applicant for a sales job tell me all about his expenses (house, 2 cars, college, alimony), I could not care less. The job offer was based on the job not hos needs and he passed. That's just the way it is.

You want to make things more equitable………how about restricting the population to a comfortable level (severely limit the number of immigrants, encourage smaller families, stop all the financial incentives for larger families, demand high school education be better and completed, stress trade schools etc.) If there are fewer people for jobs, salaries will go up (as will prices) and the market will adjust itself. The unseen hand theory. As it is now, if someone won't flip burgers for $10 an hour…someone else will. Way you many people out there … and some want open borders.

Sorry, but I just can't feel sorry for those at the low end of the pay scale. Education is free, pregnancy is preventable, and there are jobs everywhere. With all the opportunity and advantages of living in the US…if you can't be successful here, it's on you.

---

First: Sure, but that has nothing to do with whether companies care about their employees. In fact, this sentiment is the exact opposite of caring for your employees. "the reason you are getting paid so little is you are worth so little and if you don't like it you can just leave!" is the exact opposite of caring for your employees lol.

Second: Except as I just pointed out, the Walton's (who own 50.1% of WalMart stocks) are the richest family on earth. If you tell me the richest family on earth worth hundreds of billions can't afford to pay their workers a little more you are lying.


Thank you for another variation of your usual diatribe (poor people, immigrants, etc. suck and they don't take advantage of their opportunities), but it really had nothing to do with the actual subject of whether employers care about their employees.

In fact, if you are representative of employers with your level of caring, based on the above, yeah, they definitely don't care lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpecialFNK

murder attempt? I think you know better.

this is Jacob Blake and it's nothing that deserves anyone to be proud.

---

Um, if he wasn't trying to kill him then what was he trying to do?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpecialFNK

what was the article about? Jacob Blake.

Jacob Blake while in his hospital bed, was restrained. why? because there was a warrant for his arrest.

what are the charges? sexual assault.

this is why he appeared on video in court from his hospital bed.

this is part of Jacob Blake's story right now, and the media shouldn't bury that in an article.

none of this has anything to do with Trump.

---

Literally has nothing to do with being shot in the back 7 times.