Spiderweb

"Getting it"? Get what? Our young men serving our country with great distinction? You bet, and they deserve all our prayers, support, thanks, and aid. As a former enlisted man myself who served back in a day when this kind of support did not exist from the general population (my service began in February 1975 a few months before the fall of Siagon), this is a wonderful change in attitude. Yet, supporting our troops has little to do with arguing whether this action taken by our current administration was right or wrong. It's not a right or left issue either. I saw neither the right or left elitists serving. They both stayed home. Who served back then (probably the same now, with few exceptions), were the middle class, the poor, but the wealthy and those of privilege were very poorly represented. We all know all too well what history has shown and said about the Viet Nam war and I wonder how history will look back upon the Iraqi action 10, 15, 20 years down the road. Yet so not as to make this a political argument, and even though I have considerable trouble backing the current administration regarding the Iraqi action, lets all stand tall, as Americans, and not turn over backs on our young men when they return home. Let us remember their bravery and service. They deserve all of our love and support, now and especially when they come home.

I would tend to agree that employees who use "sick days" as if they are somehow thiers to use for whatever they deem appropriate (long weekend, etc) are displaying less than desirable character. As a manager I can also say that every review I've ever written (company forms), have ALWAYS had a grade for attendance. An outstanding review cannot be obtained if an employee has bad attendance. Just for the record, the grades are determined by the company as to what constitutes excellent to poor attendance. So that everyone understands, a multiple day illness (hospital stay, servere flu, etc) are not weighted severely on your attendance record by the company that employs me. A day here, a day there until they're gone is heavy weighted against the employee, but even then the reason does come into play. There are some factors that can mitigate this, but in general, that's how this would be viewed. For those who argued the "productivity" thing yesterday relative to smoke breaks, etc, is this not lost productivity of the worst kind (100%) when an employee just decides to blow off a day for "just because I can"? In my business (Transportation - Import/Export) every day is a new battle. There isn't any tomorrow when your customer needs their product today. Absenteeism is the largest blow to our productivity. No my friends, sick days are not just extensions of your vacation allotment, nor were they ever intended to be. Only those who are able to rationalize away their own actions find that they are. They are for pay continuation in the event that you are truely sick. We have 7 days (called "discretionary days") available to our employees to use. Every January 1st you get a new allotment of 7. They cannot be carried over to the next year. You're truely sick? Use them as needed. Have a dentist appointment for a root canal, medical tests, etc., let us know when the tests or procedures are and use them. They are not to make a long weekend. Yet, as we all know, some will use them just for that so there's a bit of an incentive offered not to. If you don't use the "discretionary" days then at the end of the year, you get paid for any unused ones. Lastly, in every employment interview we give, we stress right up front that attendance is a MAJOR issue. There are no secrets going into our Employer/Employee relationship in this respect.

Gotcha....love the Beatles, didn't care for the rremix though...Thanks.

Page wouldn't open but I did get lost in the Suicide Girls link (SG)...ouch...

Affirmative actions? They suck as written. One should never be forced to accept inferior, less qualified candidates just for the sake of racial, ethnic, or other, equality. To be truely equal, protected classes can never be part of the equation. Yet, I won't hold my breath for that day to come. But to deny discrimmination doesn't exist purely on racial, ethnic, etc., grounds is to be living in a fantasy world.

AP - In a wide spread action by Corporate America, all female workers have been fired yesterday. A joint statement from Fortune 500 companies was issued stating the reason was because their health insurance costs too much. In a related move, Yellow Freight, Con Way, ABX, Roadway, Ryder, were considering firing all male drivers under the age of 35 because their driver's insurance costs were deemed too high, but they've since reconsidered because female replacements would have cost them too much in health care costs. Currently, both the Senate and Congress are considering the elimination of all equal opportunity laws because companies should be allowed to do whatever the hell they feel like doing. <sarcasm off> Maybe as pre-employment criteria, I could accept some of this, but where will it stop? No job for you son, sorry, you've been known to frequent fast food establishments, ride motorcycles, play contact sports, and have also had mutiple instances of blood alcohol levels exceeding .02. But hey, we're only promoting healthy lifestyles and excercising our god given right to do whatever the heck we feel like doing.

funny....

In case you haven't heard, the smokers DO pay for their sin/vice, with the very price they pay for every pack they smoke. Strangely enough, big government profits quite handsomely from the very heavy taxes imposed on the product. Taxes, settlements, etc. Sorry, but it's the most well funded sin/vice there is. Also, as a side note, a number of years back, during the infamous cigarette trials, the defense (big tobacco) was not allowed to bring into evidence that smokers actually cost the system less (mainly because of their shortened life span). The argument, a bit revealing and cold in that they would have been saying, "yep, our product kills you" wasn't politically correct and was deemed inadmissible . Make the smoker go outside, fine. They have no right to impose their smoke on another person. Just as you my friend, have no right (business, government, or otherwise) to tell them they can't smoke or they'll be fired, stripped of their citizenship, or rights, etc, etc, etc. Yes, I do smoke. At home, I go to the garage or outside for the sake of my family (not to mention the yellow sticky film it leaves on everything inside one's home). I've quit a dozen times, yet ultimately have wandered back. I'll quit again. Maybe someday I'll make it, but that should be MY choice, not yours or my employer's, or the government's. By your logic, next on the list will be Mickey D's and so on until society matches up with your self perceived best intentions. Clearly you enjoy freedoms today you simply do not deserve because you fail to understand what freedom is.

Ah, all those fun loving "1984" wannabes. While smoking is very bad thing, so is being a fat slob and last I heard, there's far more fat slobs in this country "weighing" down the health care system than smokers. Are they the next target? So what the heck, let's continue down that slippery slope toward the day where big brother controls every facit of our lives. Hey, we're only promoting healthier life styles. It's for your own good.

Hard to argue with 2 rings and a shot at a third vs. zero.

All TD said is "nothing". He's left all his options open, yet the one thing that we can gain from this was he did not give Bledsoe an endorsement either. TD has left the position wide open for who ever steps up and takes it, just as it should be. Whether TD will be able to wheel and deal TH or even possibly Bledsoe (very doubtful though) remains to be seen.

Exactly.... I might add that Mularkey showed a bit of this which was a pleasant surprise after the Williams-Gilbride "my system or die" philosphy. I believe we'll be stronger next year with or without the Drewster. Optimist? You bet....

He does have numerous comebacks (see other posts). Do you ever stop to think that he might play a full game so that it doesn't come down to having to pull them out week after week in the 4th? What I see is a QB who puts the ball in very catchable places for his receivers, and a receiving corp that doesn't drop very many. The system crap is just that, crap. Was Montana a "system QB"? That was the argument against him while he played (until the end of his career anyway). Was Steve Young a "system QB", Unitas, Starr, Fouts, Marino, Kelly? Everyone of these guys had the opportunity to play in systems that allowed them to excel, but they were all outstanding in their own right as well. I've always despised the Pats and hope their fall starts against the Eagles, but I won't hold my breath.

Gabriel? Check out the live version of "Biko".....blows the overly pop Sledgehammer away.

The glorious days of the BUD's are gone. Ah, circa 1983, the sky's were clear and unscrambled. Wild feeds, naked ladies, Al Goldstein's Screw Magazine show (later 80's), etc. Porno (XXXctasy), HBO, led the change (scrambling along with the videocipher from MA Comm - sold to GI).... Alas, those days were glorious but unfortunately are now only a distant memory. (drawback - large and expensive equipment required).

Dangerous ground you're walking on there Petrino.

OK

LMAO....

Well said. Now you better duck....

The cap hit from paying a vet the vet minimum also has a catch in that it counts less only after the player has some set length of NFL tenure. It was more for the 10 year (and plus) vets who were geting cut simply because of $$$ IIRC.

Nope, then the liability would be all his. Can't continue to deny that the "limit" itself expressed an understanding of their product and that they, through the actions of their employee, violated that accepted understanding. That's what is the essence of responsibility anyway. This is not an evil company issue. Now who's comparing apples to donuts? Have a great day...

Back in the day (SB run), I loved all the Bills players shows. Rigas and sons destroyed a great service. Sad day, even if we all knew it was coming.

The "argument" revolves around the purported violation of the "limit" policy which clearly implies an understanding of what the product may contribute to. Surely, the scumbag is the front runner, but from a legal and ethical perspective, the vendor does share responsibility. What is wrong with this case is the size of the award, nothing more.

Catchy phrase (your close), but the if that employee did violate the "limit" ploicy then shared responsibility does fall back on the vendor as well. That is what place's the company in harm's way. It cannot be exonerated for the actions of any employee, from the CEO to the counter guy selling the beer. Sorry, but this is both reasonable and logical. In fact, had there not been a limit policy, again we could argue against placing the vendor/company at risk in this action, but that wasn't the case. The "limit" policy clearly shows an understanding of what their product can contribute to. Can't pick and chose bits and pieces. You have to look at the whole.

Never mind the loss of life this contibuted to. Who cares anyway...... Hope that something like this never happens to anyone here, but if it did, I'll bet the tune would change quickly.