1) If you think the solution is for people to own their own business rather than be a \”slave\” to anyone else, who would do the work? Would the ONE employee be responsible for every office task? How many clients could he/she possibly handle? As far as not being pro-active just because you don\’t own your own business- that comment is just stupid.
2) Why would a company fire someone who does \”outstanding\” work and is an asset to the company? Maybe it was age discrimination or maybe it was just because someone else had it in for him. Either way, your logic on that doesn\’t make much sense. Yes, you should have the right to hire and fire at will without repercussion, but at the same time, to fire a valued employee is not the best business move.
3) Why do you assume that people on here work for insurance companies as agents? There are underwriters, lawyers, adjusters, etc. who post here. You know what they say about assumptions?
1) If you think the solution is for people to own their own business rather than be a \”slave\” to anyone else, who would do the work? Would the ONE employee be responsible for every office task? How many clients could he/she possibly handle? As far as not being pro-active just because you don\’t own your own business- that comment is just stupid.
The solution for controlling one’s own life, and not having to worry about being fired for being old or ugly or fat, is to work for himself. I didn’t say no one should hire anyone or that it is wrong to work for someone else. Why would you introduce this straw man argument?
2) Why would a company fire someone who does \”outstanding\” work and is an asset to the company? Maybe it was age discrimination or maybe it was just because someone else had it in for him. Either way, your logic on that doesn\’t make much sense. Yes, you should have the right to hire and fire at will without repercussion, but at the same time, to fire a valued employee is not the best business move.
So people should have the right to make stupid business decisions, rather than to have the government control hiring and firing for every company in the nation. I\’m glad that we agree. Employment relationships are purely voluntary, and that includes whom one works for as well as whom one hires. To force someone to work against his will is slavery, to force someone to hire or retain someone against his will is tyranny.
3) Why do you assume that people on here work for insurance companies as agents? There are underwriters, lawyers, adjusters, etc. who post here. You know what they say about assumptions?
Yes I do, and it applies to you since I not only did not assume that, but I never said anything like it. Please google “how to think” and read everything that you find.
\”I didn\’t say no one should hire anyone or that it is wrong to work for someone else. Why would you introduce this straw man argument?\” -Geezer
1) Your point is that to avoid the \”problem\” one should just own their own business (or the like). Great solution! Now we will have tons of businesses and no employees to work for them. Now that we will have lots of business owners, that means much more competition. Most of the companies will go under because they don\’t have enough clients. Oh, your logic on this is brilliant! Once again, when the business fails, they will have to go work for someone else. Nothing got accomplished. Kudos to you!
2)Yes I do, and it applies to you since I not only did not assume that, but I never said anything like it. Please google \”how to think\” and read everything that you find.
You did say something like it. You stated \”Because you are depending upon other people to give it to you rather than making your own way and taking care of yourself and your own as a free agent.\”
I interpreted your agent comment as an insurance agent. Assumptions and interpretations are different. Check the dictionary if you don\’t understand. I will admit I was already fired up about your other \”stupid\” (for lack of a better, less inflammatory word) comments. I skimmed over the word free… that does make the statement different, but not an assumption. Again, you can go to dictionary.com.
Oh, and 3) I did not insult you. Save your \”how to think\” comments for yourself. I really don\’t think you want to get into a battle of wit with me. You have already proven to be narrow minded; there\’s no need to prove yourself to be small minded as well.
\”Of course, because you are not the proprietor. Had you been \”proactive\” you would have had your own business by now and not be faced with being tossed out on yer ear.\”
Sounds like you mean only people who own their own business are proactive. If you work for someone else, you are not proactive. That\’s what you stated.
If not, what did you mean? Perhaps you should work on making your thoughts more clear to people who live on planet Earth.
Geezer, do you think that age discrimination does not happen? If you think that it does, then what pray tell, is your proposed solution to the problem?
I don\’t care if there\’s \”age discrimination\” or not. I do care that there is such a term, and that it can be used to harrass employers just trying to run their business as it suits them. The company\’s owners take all the risk, and should be able therefore to operate the company as they see fit. I don\’t see where you people get off thinking that you have a right to work at a certain company, let alone to dictate how it is run, how you are treated, and so on. Go to work, do your job, behave yourself, and cash your check. If you don\’t like it, start your own business, meaning take your own risks and then you can perhaps understand what I\’m driving at.
Free people make their own way and don\’t try to force other people to support them, mitigate their mistakes, or be nice to them.
One risk of being in business is going broke. One risk of being an employee is that you can be fired at any time. Either way you take your chances and your lumps. Suing a company for firing you for being old, ugly or having halitosis is not the American way, it\’s the trial lawyers way.
It\’s about time someone posts some sense on this board. It\’s time for Americans to wake up and realize we\’re being led right into the mouths of wolves. We\’re being conditioned that we can not do anything on our own and to rely on the government for everything. Sit there and stare mindlessly at your TV while the bill of rights is being destroyed. The constition does exist in practice and it is time to take it back. What the government gives us they can take way, then what will you do?
Why do you think the dollar is being engineered into the toilet, and on and on. You\’re going to wake up and have the Amero for currency and live/work in a your nice cozy FEMA camps that are being built all over the US as I type.
\”Suing a company for firing you for being old, ugly or having halitosis is not the American way, it\’s the trial lawyers way.\”
Have you ever heard of the protected classes?
I think you live in your own world Geezer. A world where what you say makes sense to you, and only you.
\”I don\’t care if there\’s \”age discrimination\” or not. I do care that there is such a term, and that it can be used to harrass employers just trying to run their business as it suits them.\”
So you don\’t care if age discrimination exists but you care that the term exists. Hmm.. that makes no sense. What would *you* like to call it then?
\”Go to work, do your job, behave yourself, and cash your check.\”
And what will that accomplish?
\”If you don\’t like it, start your own business, meaning take your own risks and then you can perhaps understand what I\’m driving at.\”
I do own my own business and I still don\’t understand your point. Businesses need employees, and as such, those employees (who do their jobs well, etc.) should be valued, not fired due to age or any other protected class or moronic reason, for that matter.
Geezer- If you own your own business, I doubt you have any employees. I don\’t think anyone would want to work for you.
\”Free people make their own way and don\’t try to force other people to support them, mitigate their mistakes, or be nice to them.\”
Really? Their employees don\’t support them? Don\’t help to fix their mistakes? They want their employees to be mean to them? I don\’t see how you can make such a statement. Oh wait, yes I can. You live in your own little world where the only person who matters is YOU.
I am thankful there aren\’t many people I have come across who think the same way as you do.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
1) If you think the solution is for people to own their own business rather than be a \”slave\” to anyone else, who would do the work? Would the ONE employee be responsible for every office task? How many clients could he/she possibly handle? As far as not being pro-active just because you don\’t own your own business- that comment is just stupid.
2) Why would a company fire someone who does \”outstanding\” work and is an asset to the company? Maybe it was age discrimination or maybe it was just because someone else had it in for him. Either way, your logic on that doesn\’t make much sense. Yes, you should have the right to hire and fire at will without repercussion, but at the same time, to fire a valued employee is not the best business move.
3) Why do you assume that people on here work for insurance companies as agents? There are underwriters, lawyers, adjusters, etc. who post here. You know what they say about assumptions?
1) If you think the solution is for people to own their own business rather than be a \”slave\” to anyone else, who would do the work? Would the ONE employee be responsible for every office task? How many clients could he/she possibly handle? As far as not being pro-active just because you don\’t own your own business- that comment is just stupid.
The solution for controlling one’s own life, and not having to worry about being fired for being old or ugly or fat, is to work for himself. I didn’t say no one should hire anyone or that it is wrong to work for someone else. Why would you introduce this straw man argument?
2) Why would a company fire someone who does \”outstanding\” work and is an asset to the company? Maybe it was age discrimination or maybe it was just because someone else had it in for him. Either way, your logic on that doesn\’t make much sense. Yes, you should have the right to hire and fire at will without repercussion, but at the same time, to fire a valued employee is not the best business move.
So people should have the right to make stupid business decisions, rather than to have the government control hiring and firing for every company in the nation. I\’m glad that we agree. Employment relationships are purely voluntary, and that includes whom one works for as well as whom one hires. To force someone to work against his will is slavery, to force someone to hire or retain someone against his will is tyranny.
3) Why do you assume that people on here work for insurance companies as agents? There are underwriters, lawyers, adjusters, etc. who post here. You know what they say about assumptions?
Yes I do, and it applies to you since I not only did not assume that, but I never said anything like it. Please google “how to think” and read everything that you find.
\”I didn\’t say no one should hire anyone or that it is wrong to work for someone else. Why would you introduce this straw man argument?\” -Geezer
1) Your point is that to avoid the \”problem\” one should just own their own business (or the like). Great solution! Now we will have tons of businesses and no employees to work for them. Now that we will have lots of business owners, that means much more competition. Most of the companies will go under because they don\’t have enough clients. Oh, your logic on this is brilliant! Once again, when the business fails, they will have to go work for someone else. Nothing got accomplished. Kudos to you!
2)Yes I do, and it applies to you since I not only did not assume that, but I never said anything like it. Please google \”how to think\” and read everything that you find.
You did say something like it. You stated \”Because you are depending upon other people to give it to you rather than making your own way and taking care of yourself and your own as a free agent.\”
I interpreted your agent comment as an insurance agent. Assumptions and interpretations are different. Check the dictionary if you don\’t understand. I will admit I was already fired up about your other \”stupid\” (for lack of a better, less inflammatory word) comments. I skimmed over the word free… that does make the statement different, but not an assumption. Again, you can go to dictionary.com.
Oh, and 3) I did not insult you. Save your \”how to think\” comments for yourself. I really don\’t think you want to get into a battle of wit with me. You have already proven to be narrow minded; there\’s no need to prove yourself to be small minded as well.
Thanks for playing! Good day =)
\”Of course, because you are not the proprietor. Had you been \”proactive\” you would have had your own business by now and not be faced with being tossed out on yer ear.\”
Sounds like you mean only people who own their own business are proactive. If you work for someone else, you are not proactive. That\’s what you stated.
If not, what did you mean? Perhaps you should work on making your thoughts more clear to people who live on planet Earth.
Rock on with your bad self, Jewel. ;)
Geezer, do you think that age discrimination does not happen? If you think that it does, then what pray tell, is your proposed solution to the problem?
I don\’t care if there\’s \”age discrimination\” or not. I do care that there is such a term, and that it can be used to harrass employers just trying to run their business as it suits them. The company\’s owners take all the risk, and should be able therefore to operate the company as they see fit. I don\’t see where you people get off thinking that you have a right to work at a certain company, let alone to dictate how it is run, how you are treated, and so on. Go to work, do your job, behave yourself, and cash your check. If you don\’t like it, start your own business, meaning take your own risks and then you can perhaps understand what I\’m driving at.
Free people make their own way and don\’t try to force other people to support them, mitigate their mistakes, or be nice to them.
One risk of being in business is going broke. One risk of being an employee is that you can be fired at any time. Either way you take your chances and your lumps. Suing a company for firing you for being old, ugly or having halitosis is not the American way, it\’s the trial lawyers way.
It\’s about time someone posts some sense on this board. It\’s time for Americans to wake up and realize we\’re being led right into the mouths of wolves. We\’re being conditioned that we can not do anything on our own and to rely on the government for everything. Sit there and stare mindlessly at your TV while the bill of rights is being destroyed. The constition does exist in practice and it is time to take it back. What the government gives us they can take way, then what will you do?
Why do you think the dollar is being engineered into the toilet, and on and on. You\’re going to wake up and have the Amero for currency and live/work in a your nice cozy FEMA camps that are being built all over the US as I type.
http://www.jonesreport.com http://www.infowars.com
Wake up before it is too late.
\”Suing a company for firing you for being old, ugly or having halitosis is not the American way, it\’s the trial lawyers way.\”
Have you ever heard of the protected classes?
I think you live in your own world Geezer. A world where what you say makes sense to you, and only you.
\”I don\’t care if there\’s \”age discrimination\” or not. I do care that there is such a term, and that it can be used to harrass employers just trying to run their business as it suits them.\”
So you don\’t care if age discrimination exists but you care that the term exists. Hmm.. that makes no sense. What would *you* like to call it then?
\”Go to work, do your job, behave yourself, and cash your check.\”
And what will that accomplish?
\”If you don\’t like it, start your own business, meaning take your own risks and then you can perhaps understand what I\’m driving at.\”
I do own my own business and I still don\’t understand your point. Businesses need employees, and as such, those employees (who do their jobs well, etc.) should be valued, not fired due to age or any other protected class or moronic reason, for that matter.
Geezer- If you own your own business, I doubt you have any employees. I don\’t think anyone would want to work for you.
\”Free people make their own way and don\’t try to force other people to support them, mitigate their mistakes, or be nice to them.\”
Really? Their employees don\’t support them? Don\’t help to fix their mistakes? They want their employees to be mean to them? I don\’t see how you can make such a statement. Oh wait, yes I can. You live in your own little world where the only person who matters is YOU.
I am thankful there aren\’t many people I have come across who think the same way as you do.
it\’s people like you (Geezer and FreeMan) that force government intervention.
If someone is doing their job, great. Don\’t fire them (or not hire them) because they are female or Hispanic or gay.
But unfortunately, there are bigots, sexists, racists, etc. that do not treat people equally and fairly.
In a perfect country, these laws would not be needed. But, you live in the US and therefore, it is not perfect.
Have a great, narrow minded day!
Jewel, plese give your husband my sympathy.