Moderator: Community Team
Woodruff wrote:Here's a fine example of pretty useless legislation. I'm sure many folks in California think this is a wonderful move, but really...how many full-time employees do they believe Wal-Mart actually employs? I guarantee you there aren't many, and they would be the managerial types who won't be on the Medicaid rolls:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/06/03/california-to-wal-mart-enough-no-more-taxpayer-subsidized-profits-for-you/
ooge wrote:Woodruff wrote:Here's a fine example of pretty useless legislation. I'm sure many folks in California think this is a wonderful move, but really...how many full-time employees do they believe Wal-Mart actually employs? I guarantee you there aren't many, and they would be the managerial types who won't be on the Medicaid rolls:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/06/03/california-to-wal-mart-enough-no-more-taxpayer-subsidized-profits-for-you/
I was a full time employee of Wal-mart at one time,they actually prefer full time employees.
ooge wrote:Also when working the night shift you were locked in the store and not aloud to leave even during your one hour unpaid break that you were forced to take.
ooge wrote:Wal-mart has gotten better since that time but not by much.
Woodruff wrote:ooge wrote:Woodruff wrote:Here's a fine example of pretty useless legislation. I'm sure many folks in California think this is a wonderful move, but really...how many full-time employees do they believe Wal-Mart actually employs? I guarantee you there aren't many, and they would be the managerial types who won't be on the Medicaid rolls:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/06/03/california-to-wal-mart-enough-no-more-taxpayer-subsidized-profits-for-you/
I was a full time employee of Wal-mart at one time,they actually prefer full time employees.
Interesting. This goes against everything I've seen at the local Wal-Marts (Lincoln NE, Reno, NV and Biloxi MS) over the last seven years or so.ooge wrote:Also when working the night shift you were locked in the store and not aloud to leave even during your one hour unpaid break that you were forced to take.
I've heard horror stories about that, though never at the stores that were local to me. Surprised nobody has died under such conditions.ooge wrote:Wal-mart has gotten better since that time but not by much.
I must admit, Wal-Mart boycotter that I am, I have heard there have been improvements. Sadly, most of those improvements have come about only thanks to employee lawsuits.
ooge wrote:Woodruff wrote:ooge wrote:Woodruff wrote:Here's a fine example of pretty useless legislation. I'm sure many folks in California think this is a wonderful move, but really...how many full-time employees do they believe Wal-Mart actually employs? I guarantee you there aren't many, and they would be the managerial types who won't be on the Medicaid rolls:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/06/03/california-to-wal-mart-enough-no-more-taxpayer-subsidized-profits-for-you/
I was a full time employee of Wal-mart at one time,they actually prefer full time employees.
Interesting. This goes against everything I've seen at the local Wal-Marts (Lincoln NE, Reno, NV and Biloxi MS) over the last seven years or so.ooge wrote:Also when working the night shift you were locked in the store and not aloud to leave even during your one hour unpaid break that you were forced to take.
I've heard horror stories about that, though never at the stores that were local to me. Surprised nobody has died under such conditions.ooge wrote:Wal-mart has gotten better since that time but not by much.
I must admit, Wal-Mart boycotter that I am, I have heard there have been improvements. Sadly, most of those improvements have come about only thanks to employee lawsuits.
Believe me being locked in the store and not being able to leave is something you do not forget.When I worked there I shopped there,when I stopped working there I stopped shopping there,Wal-mart best customers are their employees.
Woodruff wrote:ooge wrote:Woodruff wrote:ooge wrote:Woodruff wrote:Here's a fine example of pretty useless legislation. I'm sure many folks in California think this is a wonderful move, but really...how many full-time employees do they believe Wal-Mart actually employs? I guarantee you there aren't many, and they would be the managerial types who won't be on the Medicaid rolls:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/06/03/california-to-wal-mart-enough-no-more-taxpayer-subsidized-profits-for-you/
I was a full time employee of Wal-mart at one time,they actually prefer full time employees.
Interesting. This goes against everything I've seen at the local Wal-Marts (Lincoln NE, Reno, NV and Biloxi MS) over the last seven years or so.ooge wrote:Also when working the night shift you were locked in the store and not aloud to leave even during your one hour unpaid break that you were forced to take.
I've heard horror stories about that, though never at the stores that were local to me. Surprised nobody has died under such conditions.ooge wrote:Wal-mart has gotten better since that time but not by much.
I must admit, Wal-Mart boycotter that I am, I have heard there have been improvements. Sadly, most of those improvements have come about only thanks to employee lawsuits.
Believe me being locked in the store and not being able to leave is something you do not forget.When I worked there I shopped there,when I stopped working there I stopped shopping there,Wal-mart best customers are their employees.
I would imagine the 10% employee discount has a lot to do with that.
Is a dangerous partisan divide really destroying the American government? It’s pretty hard to discern that from the policy debate on Syria, where our two-party system divides like this: Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky on one side, and everybody else on the other.
On the other side of the argument are such supposed ideological opposites as Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Bob Casey (D-Penn.) and John McCain (R-Ariz), all of whom want the United States to sweep into Syria with guns blazing. McCain, who has never encountered a foreign-policy problem that couldn’t, in his opinion, be solved by dropping a bomb on it, even labeled Paul a “wacko bird” for his dangerous unbelligerance.
The administration originally offered rhetorical sympathy, but not much more, to the rebels trying to oust Bashar Assad. Then it decided to permit other countries to ship U.S. arms to the (supposedly) nonradical factions of the rebels. Now we’re giving guns directly to those rebels.
thegreekdog wrote:Is a dangerous partisan divide really destroying the American government? It’s pretty hard to discern that from the policy debate on Syria, where our two-party system divides like this: Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky on one side, and everybody else on the other.
thegreekdog wrote:The administration originally offered rhetorical sympathy, but not much more, to the rebels trying to oust Bashar Assad. Then it decided to permit other countries to ship U.S. arms to the (supposedly) nonradical factions of the rebels. Now we’re giving guns directly to those rebels.
Woodruff wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Is a dangerous partisan divide really destroying the American government? It’s pretty hard to discern that from the policy debate on Syria, where our two-party system divides like this: Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky on one side, and everybody else on the other.
That's a great quote.thegreekdog wrote:The administration originally offered rhetorical sympathy, but not much more, to the rebels trying to oust Bashar Assad. Then it decided to permit other countries to ship U.S. arms to the (supposedly) nonradical factions of the rebels. Now we’re giving guns directly to those rebels.
The next Taliban, folks.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Woodruff wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Is a dangerous partisan divide really destroying the American government? It’s pretty hard to discern that from the policy debate on Syria, where our two-party system divides like this: Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky on one side, and everybody else on the other.
That's a great quote.thegreekdog wrote:The administration originally offered rhetorical sympathy, but not much more, to the rebels trying to oust Bashar Assad. Then it decided to permit other countries to ship U.S. arms to the (supposedly) nonradical factions of the rebels. Now we’re giving guns directly to those rebels.
The next Taliban, folks.
I'm sure they'll greatly appreciate NATO's efforts in bringing them to power. Years later, we'll look back at this moment and say, "thank god we've spread democracy, and at the very least, we've helped save those poor people from their evil government."
BigBallinStalin wrote:Nonsense! Libya is a young, pro-democratic country making inroads toward prosperity with the help of the IMF, World Bank, and US Aid. Together, as a Global Force for Good, we can make a difference, but without any help, Libya would remain ruled by an evil dictator whose country was running at a modest 14k per-capita GDP.
Woodruff wrote:Here's a fine example of pretty useless legislation. I'm sure many folks in California think this is a wonderful move, but really...how many full-time employees do they believe Wal-Mart actually employs? I guarantee you there aren't many, and they would be the managerial types who won't be on the Medicaid rolls:
The retailer says it will offer a job to any honorably discharged veteran within a year of active duty. Walmart projects that it will hire more than 100,000 veterans over the next five years.
Most of the jobs will be in stores and clubs while others will be in distribution centers and at the corporate office.
Walmart also is guaranteeing a job at nearby store or club for military spouses who work at a Walmart or Sam's Club and move to a different part of the country because of a military transfer.
tzor wrote:Woodruff wrote:Here's a fine example of pretty useless legislation. I'm sure many folks in California think this is a wonderful move, but really...how many full-time employees do they believe Wal-Mart actually employs? I guarantee you there aren't many, and they would be the managerial types who won't be on the Medicaid rolls:
I mean it's not like the hire Veterans or anything ... wait they do ...Walmart starts new effort to hire military veteransThe retailer says it will offer a job to any honorably discharged veteran within a year of active duty. Walmart projects that it will hire more than 100,000 veterans over the next five years.
Most of the jobs will be in stores and clubs while others will be in distribution centers and at the corporate office.
Walmart also is guaranteeing a job at nearby store or club for military spouses who work at a Walmart or Sam's Club and move to a different part of the country because of a military transfer.
waauw wrote:I'm not trying to protect Gadaffi, but the current Libya isn't much better. Militia's from local gang leaders run free on the streets fighting and committing acts of terrorism. There is an ever increasing threat from the Mahgreb Al Quiada. Any economic shock or any increase in global food prices could tip it to the muslim fundamentalist side completely. The country is entirely unstable.
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.
Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
GreecePwns wrote:waauw wrote:I'm not trying to protect Gadaffi, but the current Libya isn't much better. Militia's from local gang leaders run free on the streets fighting and committing acts of terrorism. There is an ever increasing threat from the Mahgreb Al Quiada. Any economic shock or any increase in global food prices could tip it to the muslim fundamentalist side completely. The country is entirely unstable.
In the US, there are religious fundamentalists thinking they can "pray the gay away."
In the Middle East, there are religious fundamentalists thinking they can "pray the famine away."
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: bigtoughralf