TID: PX/Win v3.0pr5 PX96-0466M2   
   MSGID: 1:135/392 70b0b473   
   TZUTC: -0500   
      CP wrote --   
      
   > > Someone once said when hiring people it was often better to hire someone   
   who had lots of jobs over someone who had a sheepskin and has no work   
   experience.   
   > > The one who had the jobs shows determination while the other hasn't.   
   >    
   > True -- but too many jobs makes it look like you aren't one to commit & they   
   worry their losses in training will not be returned, as they'll get trained &   
   flighty off elsewhere.    
      
     I may not have made myself clear there.   
     Its not someone who has only had a lot of different jobs, but who has   
   done a variety of jobs and the skills that come along with those jobs, be it   
   entry level or a CEO of a multinational company.   
      As one goes from job to job (entry level moving  upward) they learn new   
   skills than someone with a newly printed sheepskin doesn't have.   
      
   > (McDonalds, especially, has this problem, as McD's on    
   > your CV is a guartanteed interview getter for something better)   
      
     And McDonald's is generally an entry level (or stop gap or extra income)   
   job, as most minimum wage jobs are.   
     Minimum wage is just that, the minimum, and not intended to be used to   
   support a family, etc.     
     One does not start as a burger flipper and do that forever, or at least   
   shouldn't.  One flips burgers till something better comes along: team leader,   
   assistant manager, manager, etc with increase in pay along the way if they   
   stay in that job.  And more ofte   
     This would reflected in their work experience to a new employer.   
      
   > One of our local schools (BCIT) is the same -- it's a guaranteed job when   
   you grad their programs)   
      
      I hope they don't guarantee permanent employment at that position.     
      
   > I had to get it upon leaving the hospiotal & rehab, buyt I saw it as only a   
   temporary safety net, not a permanment solution/way of life.   
      
      Too many today use the safety net as a hammock.   
      Then laugh at us folks for working while they sit back and are taken   
   care of with our tax dollars.   
      I believe those who are able to work should work and not get any   
   welfare.  And there are different skills people have who may have a disability.   
      While someone may not be able to do manual labour, they can hold down a   
   desk job.   
       
   > Now, very dsadly, jobsare going ujnfilled because peoplewould rather sit at   
   home on the Covid allowance than do real work! :( These are ADULTS!!!    
      
     Same here.   
     I was against sending everyone that Covid money.  Some people, like   
   myself, didn't need it, and there were people who did need it.     
     Things like this should be based on need, not money tossed at people   
   willy-nilly.     
     But then we are talking about politicians who see throwing money at   
   people as a means of being re-elected by some people.   
     We  used to joke here in WV that politicians brought votes by "a dollar   
   and a swaller".    Vote for me and I'll give a dollar and a drink each time   
   you vote.   
       
   > There was no real automation then; even now for some jobs, human labour is   
   necessary (picking the billion dollar berry crops here, for one)   
      
     And eventually automation will replace the berry pickers.   
     When so many were calling for $15 an hour minimum wage, companies began   
   to look at automation even more so with some FF places replacing counter   
   people with machines.   
     The initial cost is high but pays for itself over time.   
     Now those were calling for the higher minimum wage are out of a job.   
       
   > My dad wasforced to join a union, by law & wasn't happy about it.   
      
     At one time I had to join a union and not happy.   
     I was working part time for a large grocery chain (it was a stop gap job   
   since nothing else available at the time).   
      After 30 days one had to join the union.  I was working in produce   
   department and some fruit union.   
      This company had a policy of never firing anyone.   
      What they did was cut back ones hours for the ones they wanted to get   
   rid of until their hours until they worked only enough time to cover their   
   union dues.   
      After a couple of months something better came along and I was gone.   
       
   > Yup, that's been my view of it, too.  But was the south part of the Union   
   yet?   
   > Oh, yes, I guess that included the southern parts of the LA Purchase, eh?   
      
     Yep.  The South, until 1861, had always been part of the union.   
     The Louisiana Purchase in 1803 doubled the size of the country and all   
   new states (and territories there in) became part of the union.   
     There was a big debate over if the new states would be slave or free, for   
   a balance of power.  That is there could be not be more slave or free states   
   but an equal number.   
     Say you had three territories who wanted to join the union.  One had to   
   be free and the other slave.  Thus the third territory that wanted to be   
   admitted had to wait for a territory opposite it to come up.   
     This was also based on geography, what the people wanted, etc.     
        
   > & the Republican Party was created to then become for slavery (only because   
   the Dems were antis, is how it looks to me.)  1964 cost the Dems a lot of   
   votes for years to  come.)   
      
     Close, but you have it reversed.   
     The Dem's were pro-slavery, the Republicans anti-slavery, at least   
   joining the union at the beginning.  And not anti-slavery per se, just no more   
   slave states admitted.   
     The Dem's controlled the South before the Civil War and the Republicans   
   were the majority party in the north.    
     After the war the Republicans controlled the South and it was the   
   Republicans who passed the 13th amendment abolishing slavery, the 14th that   
   gave   
   citizenship to former slaves and the 15th that gave former slaves the right to   
   vote.  All opposed by the Democ   
      This didn't set well with a lot of people, on either side.   
      Some Southerns didn't like the idea of freed slaves being citizens and   
   voting, and some northerners didn't like the idea of all these former slaves   
   being equal citizens.  This was mostly due to economics since freed slaves   
   threw more people into the job ma   
      It was the Democrats who opposed all this and passed Jim Crow laws of   
   varying degrees.  Segregation was common until the late 1960s in nearly all   
   states to one degree or another.  It may not have been at blatant as it was in   
   the South.   
      But those opposing integration were almost all Democrats.   
      The Civil Rights Act of 1964 ending segregation was passed with barely a   
   Democrat voting for it.  It was begun by the Republicans and signed by   
   Democrat Lyndon Johnson, not because he necessarily agreed with it, but for   
   political motive since he thought it   
      
   > > the market with more workers than there were paying jobs?   
   >    
   > There is that -- was that ever brought up explicitly in Congress or Senate   
   then?   
      
      Not that I am aware of.   
      
   > I am happy our system defines fixed election times, so the public gets to   
   re-evaluate all   
      
     Same  here.   
      
   > but I don't like that there are people who merely vote against the incumbent   
   with no clue how that might affect them or their neighbours.   
      
     When it comes to voting too many people are lazy.     
     They don't want to take the few minutes it takes to vote out of their   
   "busy day" much less even learn who is running and their positions.   
     When I vote (and only missed one election, school board when I first   
   moved back here) I read what the person has done in the past, not just want   
   they   
   say they will do.     
     Its easy for someone to say "vote for me and you'll have everything you   
   want" but once in office make a lame attempt and say "Well, I tried, vote for   
   me again".   
      So many voters simply see a name they recognise and even if they may not   
   like that person, vote for them again because the other guy may be worse.   
      Elections are too often popularity contests.   
       
   > We had to pass a lawmaking it ilegal    
      
      Sadly, too often the case today.   
      I would like to see people in a situation like that be charged with   
   negligence.     
      Joe   
   --- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5   
    * Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 www.doccyber.org bbs.docsplace.org (1:135/392)   
   SEEN-BY: 1/120 123 15/0 18/0 90/1 105/81 106/201 116/116 120/340 123/0   
   SEEN-BY: 123/25 115 126 131 160 180 200 755 129/305 330 331 135/300   
   SEEN-BY: 135/366 371 379 382 383 384 385 388 390 391 392 138/146 153/757   
   SEEN-BY: 153/7715 154/10 218/700 222/2 226/30 227/114 229/110 111   
   SEEN-BY: 229/206 307 317 400 424 426 428 452 664 700 240/1120 250/1   
   SEEN-BY: 261/38 1466 266/512 275/100 1000 282/1038 292/854 299/6 300/4   
   SEEN-BY: 317/3 320/219 322/757 342/11 200 396/45 460/58 633/280 640/1321   
   SEEN-BY: 712/848 1321 3634/0 12 15 24 27 50 5020/1042   
   PATH: 135/392 300 3634/12 153/7715 229/426