On 7/7/2013 6:19 PM, Pico Rico wrote:
> "casa bona" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 7/7/2013 5:25 PM, Pico Rico wrote:
>>> "casa bona" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 7/7/2013 4:02 PM, Pico Rico wrote:
>>>>> "casa bona" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On 7/7/2013 3:22 PM, Pico Rico wrote:
>>>>>>> "casa bona" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> On 7/7/2013 9:40 AM, Janet wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article >,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> says...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 06 Jul 2013 18:39:16 -0600, casa bona > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> How can a "without cause" law be something anyone would pass,
>>>>>>>>>>> especially
>>>>>>>>>>> the French?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It means that employees under 26 are on probation and do not
>>>>>>>>> "get
>>>>>>>>> tenure" until they've worked in a job for two years.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That part makes sense, it's the ability to fire for no cause that I
>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>> care for.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> you obviously hve never ran a business and had employees.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You'll be so kind as to explain to me what firing for no cause
>>>>>> accomplishes?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> you do not fire for no cause, you just don't have to jump through hoops
>>>>> and
>>>>> convince someone else that your cause is just.
>>>>
>>>> What if your "cause" is, you don't like a person's skin color or faith?
>>>
>>> well, there are laws against that, even for "at will" employees. Where
>>> have
>>> you been?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> If you look back, I mentioned the EEOC and wondered what France has in
>> this respect.
>
> Then why are you asking "What if your "cause" is, you don't like a person's
> skin color or faith?"? you are just screwing with us.
>
>
No I am not. I'm exploring whether this law jibes with France's
increasingly combative relationship with Muslims.

As of 2006 that was somewhat less of a issue than it is now, but still
there were riots and issues.

On 7/7/2013 7:11 PM, graham wrote:
> "casa bona" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 7/7/2013 4:34 PM, graham wrote:
>>> "casa bona" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 7/7/2013 3:21 PM, Jeßus wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 07:29:15 -0600, "graham" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Nancy Young" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> On 7/6/2013 8:47 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 06/07/2013 8:22 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't mind dawdling for a long time if I'm hanging out with
>>>>>>>>> friends,
>>>>>>>>> but I do not wish to be stuck staying because of slow service. I'd
>>>>>>>>> like to decide if I stay for hours.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When you live in a place with high rents and small apartments people
>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>> not have room to entertain groups. They go to bars and restaurants,
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> they pay a good buck to have place to sit and stay.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have no problem with that! Not one little bitty problem. Sounds
>>>>>>> great!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Paris is full of
>>>>>>>> sidewalk cafes where you pay and arm and a leg for a cup of coffee,
>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>> you can sit there and talk with your friends and people watch for
>>>>>>>> hours.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I get it, I'm not saying those people shouldn't do that. Every night
>>>>>>> if they wish. All day long.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm saying that if a customer does not care to sit for hours (not
>>>>>>> feeling
>>>>>>> well? Exhausted after a long day of sightseeing? Have to get
>>>>>>> up at 4am to catch a plane? Whatever) the response isn't to sniff
>>>>>>> superiorly that this is Paris and go whisper to other customers how
>>>>>>> much better they are than the Americans! but to expedite their dinner
>>>>>>> in some way. It's called service.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You just don't get it, do you! This is the American arrogance that I
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> come across so often where you expect everything to be the way you do
>>>>>> things
>>>>>> back home!
>>>>>> You are in a foreign country to experience the sights and culture and
>>>>>> their
>>>>>> way of life. If you want everything "American style" then stay home
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> dine
>>>>>> at an "all you can eat" buffet with all the grossly obese lard-arses
>>>>>> (which,
>>>>>> by the way, you won't see in France). This was a good, classy
>>>>>> restaurant
>>>>>> where the chefs took their time and had pride in the dishes they were
>>>>>> creating. One should take note of that and sit and appreciate the
>>>>>> food
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> has been carefully prepared for you, not just wolf it down.
>>>>>
>>>>> A voice of reason in this thread. Blasphemy.
>>>>>
>>>> More petty cultural obiesance, sadly.
>>>
>>> And, sadly, more cultural arrogance from you.
>>> Graham
>>>
>>>
>> It's culturally arrogant to wish to consume food at the pace I have my
>> entire life?
>>
>> Isn't it far more arrogant of you to want to alter my habits?
>
> No!

Why?

Do you require that I breathe deeper or more slowly?

> You leave your habits at home, or at least modify them when immersed in
> another culture.

You mean like smoking?

What manner of behavior modifications are we dealing with here, those
that jibe with good health, or those that genuflect to a culture set on
a different time clock?

The only thing I can impact by eating expeditiously is to remove my
offensive self more rapidly from the teetering French sensibility and
allow them to fill the table with one of their own kindred dawdlers.

I should think they'd be gratified at my limiting my American pollution
of their sacrosanct leisurely dining ritual.

On 7/7/2013 7:29 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 07/07/2013 5:34 PM, Cheri wrote:
>>> "Julie Bove" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Ha! Not always clean. We made the mistake of going into the one by
>>>> Golden Gate Park, mainly because I needed to use the restroom.
>>>> Afterwards, the young woman sitting in the sink and applying her
>>>> makeup informed me that there was no running water in there and never
>>>> had been. Luckily I had baby wipes with me but... Eek! The we
>>>> usually went to (not that we went there often) on Staten Island wasn't
>>>> so great either.
>>>
>>> There was no running water in a McD's in SF? I don't believe that at
>>> all, unless they happened to be experiencing plumbing problems on that
>>> particular day. How did they flush the toilets without water?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Ha. Julie got you again with her bullshit. If it were anyone else telling
>> us that there is a McDs without running water, and never had any, it might
>> be more credible.... but this is coming from our resident narcissistic
>> drama queen.
>> Do you think that McDs would allow on of its outlets without running
>> water? I am no fan of McDs food, but I cannot believe that.
>
> I meant for the sink! The woman told me there was no running water in the
> sink and never had been. Could well be that she just said that because as I
> said, she was sitting *in* the sink! Perhaps she didn't want to move. I
> don't know. It just wasn't a pleasant place to be. All sorts of people in
> there that appeared to need some sort of help in one way or another and
> weren't getting it.
>
>
I understood your meaning the first time, a grand place to exit - stage
left.

On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 17:33:03 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 07/07/2013 5:22 PM, Pico Rico wrote:
> tenure" until they've worked in a job for two years.
>>>
>>> That part makes sense, it's the ability to fire for no cause that I don't
>>> care for.
>>
>>
>> you obviously hve never ran a business and had employees.
>>
>
>
>Do businesses run more efficiently if you can fire for no reason?
>
>

Never saw a side by side comparison, but at least you can easily get
rid of problem people. I've worked where the union shop would make it
very difficult to get rid of bad workers. I can see the union
protecting someone that would be fired just because a boss did not
like his personality, but they fight for workers that can't do a good
job, slow production and any reason that an employee "should" be fired
for.

Companies, especially small ones, have personalities, just like
individual people. Sometimes you get a person that just does not fit
and is disruptive. Better for everyone that they should leave.

On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 18:07:06 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 07/07/2013 6:01 PM, Pico Rico wrote:
>
>>>>> That part makes sense, it's the ability to fire for no cause that I
>>>>> don't
>>>>> care for.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> you obviously hve never ran a business and had employees.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Do businesses run more efficiently if you can fire for no reason?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> yes.
>
>That must to wonders for morale. I can just imagine how the drudges will
>work their asses off when they know that it doesn't matter how hard they
>work, that the boss can fire them on a whim.
>
>


If you are doing a good job, you probably won't be fired and you may
be rewarded. If you have to worry that the boss may fire you, good
chance there is a legitimate reason for that and you'd be better off
not there anyway.

Enlightened management (it is not 1930 any more) will have policies in
effect that deal with problems and spell out penalties clearly.

If you owned a business, would you not want to be able to choose who
you want working for you?

On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 18:30:01 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:



>>
>
>There are no simple solutions. Sometimes morale suffers because of a
>particular employee, but that does not mean that the person has not been
>doing their job. Sometimes the unpopular employee is the one that is
>working hard and doing their job and the real issue is that they are
>making the others look bad.
>
> From my many years of work experience I would suggest that the person
>who is really causing morale problems is the incompetent supervisor, the
>person who lives to hassle the workers, who impedes productivity with
>bad decisions and poor communication skills, the sort that is quick to
>report or fire their underlings.

That happens and in a well run company, the supervisor gets the axe.
I've done it myself a couple of times. Communication is important.

On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 15:01:20 -0700, "Pico Rico" >
wrote:

>
> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 16:40:05 +0100, Janet > wrote:
> >
> >> In article >,
> >> says...
> >> >
> >> > On Sat, 06 Jul 2013 18:39:16 -0600, casa bona > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > How can a "without cause" law be something anyone would pass,
> >> > > especially
> >> > > the French?
> >>
> >> It means that employees under 26 are on probation and do not "get
> >> tenure" until they've worked in a job for two years.
> >> >
> >> > We have "at will" employment here in the USA.
> >>
> >> AIUI plenty of employees in the USA have jobs which are without tenure
> >> until they have srved a probation of several years.
> >>
> >> http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/5/315.201
> >>
> >
> > Employment is not guaranteed in the USA. Non-union workers can be
> > fired or quit at any time and contracts can be broken by either party.
>
> that is not true. If an employment contract is in place, as opposed to "at
> will" employment, the contract can be enforced.
>

Contracts can also be broken. Sweeten the deal enough and the other
side will acquiesce.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 18:30:01 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> I would suggest that the person
> who is really causing morale problems is the incompetent supervisor, the
> person who lives to hassle the workers, who impedes productivity with
> bad decisions and poor communication skills, the sort that is quick to
> report or fire their underlings.

Agreed.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 18:07:06 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>>On 07/07/2013 6:01 PM, Pico Rico wrote:
>>
>>>>>> That part makes sense, it's the ability to fire for no cause that I
>>>>>> don't
>>>>>> care for.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> you obviously hve never ran a business and had employees.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do businesses run more efficiently if you can fire for no reason?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> yes.
>>
>>That must to wonders for morale. I can just imagine how the drudges will
>>work their asses off when they know that it doesn't matter how hard they
>>work, that the boss can fire them on a whim.
>>
>>
>
>
> If you are doing a good job, you probably won't be fired and you may
> be rewarded. If you have to worry that the boss may fire you, good
> chance there is a legitimate reason for that and you'd be better off
> not there anyway.
>
> Enlightened management (it is not 1930 any more) will have policies in
> effect that deal with problems and spell out penalties clearly.
>
> If you owned a business, would you not want to be able to choose who
> you want working for you?

That's not necessarily true. Although they might not fire, they can lay
off. I once worked for a company that was notorious for this. They seemed
not to do this to the management but they did to everyone else. They would
let you work until you were about 2 hours short of getting unemployment then
lay you off and promise you that you would be the first to be called back.
Don't call us! We'll call you! And of course they never called.

If they fire, I think they have to pay unemployment unless there is a really
good reason.

On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 14:34:58 -0700, "Cheri" >
wrote:

> "Julie Bove" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Ha! Not always clean. We made the mistake of going into the one by
> > Golden Gate Park, mainly because I needed to use the restroom.
> > Afterwards, the young woman sitting in the sink and applying her makeup
> > informed me that there was no running water in there and never had been.
> > Luckily I had baby wipes with me but... Eek! The we usually went to (not
> > that we went there often) on Staten Island wasn't so great either.
>
> There was no running water in a McD's in SF? I don't believe that at all,
> unless they happened to be experiencing plumbing problems on that particular
> day. How did they flush the toilets without water?
>
She's delusional.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 17:41:38 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> Do you think that McDs would allow on of its outlets without running
> water? I am no fan of McDs food, but I cannot believe that.

Do you think the CITY would let them get away with it? Patrons would
be reporting it right and left and they'd be all over that place to be
in compliance or close.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 16:34:35 -0600, "graham" > wrote:

> And, sadly, more cultural arrogance from you.
> Graham

And, we're perceiving cultural arrogance from you.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 14:34:58 -0700, "Cheri" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Julie Bove" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> > Ha! Not always clean. We made the mistake of going into the one by
>> > Golden Gate Park, mainly because I needed to use the restroom.
>> > Afterwards, the young woman sitting in the sink and applying her makeup
>> > informed me that there was no running water in there and never had
>> > been.
>> > Luckily I had baby wipes with me but... Eek! The we usually went to
>> > (not
>> > that we went there often) on Staten Island wasn't so great either.
>>
>> There was no running water in a McD's in SF? I don't believe that at all,
>> unless they happened to be experiencing plumbing problems on that
>> particular
>> day. How did they flush the toilets without water?
>>
> She's delusional.

The woman in the sink may have been. I know I'm not. She is the one who
told me there was no running water. Perhaps because she didn't want to move
from the sink. As I said, she was sitting in it. At any rate, the bathroom
was very filthy and I was unable to wash my hands.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 17:41:38 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> Do you think that McDs would allow on of its outlets without running
>> water? I am no fan of McDs food, but I cannot believe that.
>
> Do you think the CITY would let them get away with it? Patrons would
> be reporting it right and left and they'd be all over that place to be
> in compliance or close.

I said that I was told that there was no water in the sink. That may have
been a lie but that's what she said and she didn't move from the sink for me
to try it. I didn't bother to tell anyone because we didn't get a very nice
reception in there and the whole place was crawling with people I didn't
want to deal with. I just wanted to go home.

In article >, says...
>
> "sf" > wrote in message

> > She's delusional.
>
> The woman in the sink may have been. I know I'm not. She is the one who
> told me there was no running water.

You're the one who believed it.

Janet UK

In article >,
says...
>
> On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 16:40:05 +0100, Janet > wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > says...
> > >
> > > On Sat, 06 Jul 2013 18:39:16 -0600, casa bona > wrote:
> > >
> > > > How can a "without cause" law be something anyone would pass, especially
> > > > the French?
> >
> > It means that employees under 26 are on probation and do not "get
> > tenure" until they've worked in a job for two years.
> > >
> > > We have "at will" employment here in the USA.
> >
> > AIUI plenty of employees in the USA have jobs which are without tenure
> > until they have srved a probation of several years.
> >
> > http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/5/315.201
> >
>
> Employment is not guaranteed in the USA.

Nor is it in Europe where there are many worker-protections that are
graduated by age, and length of employment, so don't kick in as soon as
someone starts the job. When they do, it doesn't mean the employee is
unsackable.

Janet

"Janet" > wrote in message
t...
> In article >, says...
>>
>> "sf" > wrote in message
>
>> > She's delusional.
>>
>> The woman in the sink may have been. I know I'm not. She is the one who
>> told me there was no running water.
>
> You're the one who believed it.

You're missing the point! The sink was unusable.

In article >, says...
>
> "Janet" > wrote in message
> t...
> > In article >, says...
> >>
> >> "sf" > wrote in message
> >
> >> > She's delusional.
> >>
> >> The woman in the sink may have been. I know I'm not. She is the one who
> >> told me there was no running water.
> >
> > You're the one who believed it.
>
> You're missing the point! The sink was unusable.

Because she was sitting it. Not because of the fairy story you were
daft enough to believe.

Janet UK

"Janet" > wrote in message
t...
> In article >, says...
>>
>> "Janet" > wrote in message
>> t...
>> > In article >, says...
>> >>
>> >> "sf" > wrote in message
>> >
>> >> > She's delusional.
>> >>
>> >> The woman in the sink may have been. I know I'm not. She is the one
>> >> who
>> >> told me there was no running water.
>> >
>> > You're the one who believed it.
>>
>> You're missing the point! The sink was unusable.
>
> Because she was sitting it. Not because of the fairy story you were
> daft enough to believe.

Either way, I could not use the sink. So it was unhygienic. And as I said,
the workers acted like they didn't care about anything. I'm sure they knew.
So I didn't bother to report it.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 14:34:58 -0700, "Cheri" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Julie Bove" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> > Ha! Not always clean. We made the mistake of going into the one by
>> > Golden Gate Park, mainly because I needed to use the restroom.
>> > Afterwards, the young woman sitting in the sink and applying her makeup
>> > informed me that there was no running water in there and never had
>> > been.
>> > Luckily I had baby wipes with me but... Eek! The we usually went to
>> > (not
>> > that we went there often) on Staten Island wasn't so great either.
>>
>> There was no running water in a McD's in SF? I don't believe that at all,
>> unless they happened to be experiencing plumbing problems on that
>> particular
>> day. How did they flush the toilets without water?
>>
> She's delusional.

Has it occurred to you that the woman sitting IN the
sink just didn't want to move and gave that story so that she didn't have
to? I man, how often do you see people sitting IN sinks. Julie had no way
to prove otherwise did she? Would you start an argument with some loonie
sitting IN a sink??
--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

"Julie Bove" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ophelia" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Well I don't know about Pizza Hut et al because I never go to them, but I
>> don't know anywhere that gives free refills .... having said that I don't
>> think I ever asked for one
>
> We almost always get refills. And in this area I don't think any Pizza
> Huts are sit down places any more.

Well I don't go in but there is a Pizza Hut in Glasgow where I sometimes
walk past and see people at the tables, mainly because there are tables in
the windows.
--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

"Ophelia" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 14:34:58 -0700, "Cheri" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Julie Bove" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>> > Ha! Not always clean. We made the mistake of going into the one by
>>> > Golden Gate Park, mainly because I needed to use the restroom.
>>> > Afterwards, the young woman sitting in the sink and applying her
>>> > makeup
>>> > informed me that there was no running water in there and never had
>>> > been.
>>> > Luckily I had baby wipes with me but... Eek! The we usually went to
>>> > (not
>>> > that we went there often) on Staten Island wasn't so great either.
>>>
>>> There was no running water in a McD's in SF? I don't believe that at
>>> all,
>>> unless they happened to be experiencing plumbing problems on that
>>> particular
>>> day. How did they flush the toilets without water?
>>>
>> She's delusional.
>
> Has it occurred to you that the woman sitting IN the
> sink just didn't want to move and gave that story so that she didn't have
> to? I man, how often do you see people sitting IN sinks. Julie had no
> way
> to prove otherwise did she? Would you start an argument with some loonie
> sitting IN a sink??

That did occur to me. But bottom line, the bathroom was filthy and I had no
way to wash my hands. As I said, the workers in there didn't seem to care
about much of anything and the woman seemed like she was in there all the
time. At least that's what she told me so... I didn't bother to tell them,
figuring they would do nothing.

"Ophelia" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Julie Bove" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Ophelia" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> Well I don't know about Pizza Hut et al because I never go to them, but
>>> I
>>> don't know anywhere that gives free refills .... having said that I
>>> don't
>>> think I ever asked for one
>>
>> We almost always get refills. And in this area I don't think any Pizza
>> Huts are sit down places any more.
>
> Well I don't go in but there is a Pizza Hut in Glasgow where I sometimes
> walk past and see people at the tables, mainly because there are tables in
> the windows.

Ah... It was one of my favorite places to go as a kid and teen but not for
the pizza. I never ate that. I always had the salad bar.

In article >,
lid says...
>
> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 14:34:58 -0700, "Cheri" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Julie Bove" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>
> >> > Ha! Not always clean. We made the mistake of going into the one by
> >> > Golden Gate Park, mainly because I needed to use the restroom.
> >> > Afterwards, the young woman sitting in the sink and applying her makeup
> >> > informed me that there was no running water in there and never had
> >> > been.
> >> > Luckily I had baby wipes with me but... Eek! The we usually went to
> >> > (not
> >> > that we went there often) on Staten Island wasn't so great either.
> >>
> >> There was no running water in a McD's in SF? I don't believe that at all,
> >> unless they happened to be experiencing plumbing problems on that
> >> particular
> >> day. How did they flush the toilets without water?
> >>
> > She's delusional.
>
> Has it occurred to you that the woman sitting IN the
> sink just didn't want to move and gave that story so that she didn't have
> to? I man, how often do you see people sitting IN sinks.

Exactly, Einstein. So why did that not occur to Julie. Instead, Julie
repeats the obvious fantasy as the basis for her claim that MacDonalds
is NOT CLEAN.

Janet UK

"Janet" > wrote in message
t...
> In article >,
> lid says...
>>
>> "sf" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 14:34:58 -0700, "Cheri" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Julie Bove" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >>
>> >> > Ha! Not always clean. We made the mistake of going into the one by
>> >> > Golden Gate Park, mainly because I needed to use the restroom.
>> >> > Afterwards, the young woman sitting in the sink and applying her
>> >> > makeup
>> >> > informed me that there was no running water in there and never had
>> >> > been.
>> >> > Luckily I had baby wipes with me but... Eek! The we usually went
>> >> > to
>> >> > (not
>> >> > that we went there often) on Staten Island wasn't so great either.
>> >>
>> >> There was no running water in a McD's in SF? I don't believe that at
>> >> all,
>> >> unless they happened to be experiencing plumbing problems on that
>> >> particular
>> >> day. How did they flush the toilets without water?
>> >>
>> > She's delusional.
>>
>> Has it occurred to you that the woman sitting IN the
>> sink just didn't want to move and gave that story so that she didn't have
>> to? I man, how often do you see people sitting IN sinks.
>
> Exactly, Einstein. So why did that not occur to Julie. Instead, Julie
> repeats the obvious fantasy as the basis for her claim that MacDonalds
> is NOT CLEAN.

Why does it bother you so much, or do you just like to show off (as always)
that you always know better then anyone else and of course picking on a very
easy target to do so?

Julie is not you, and nor am I (thank God) so don't expect everyone to have
the same ideas as you errr Einstein!
--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 15:01:20 -0700, "Pico Rico" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "sf" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 16:40:05 +0100, Janet > wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article >,
>> >>
>> >> says...
>> >> >
>> >> > On Sat, 06 Jul 2013 18:39:16 -0600, casa bona > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > How can a "without cause" law be something anyone would pass,
>> >> > > especially
>> >> > > the French?
>> >>
>> >> It means that employees under 26 are on probation and do not "get
>> >> tenure" until they've worked in a job for two years.
>> >> >
>> >> > We have "at will" employment here in the USA.
>> >>
>> >> AIUI plenty of employees in the USA have jobs which are without
>> >> tenure
>> >> until they have srved a probation of several years.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/5/315.201
>> >>
>> >
>> > Employment is not guaranteed in the USA. Non-union workers can be
>> > fired or quit at any time and contracts can be broken by either party.
>>
>> that is not true. If an employment contract is in place, as opposed to
>> "at
>> will" employment, the contract can be enforced.
>>
>
> Contracts can also be broken. Sweeten the deal enough and the other
> side will acquiesce.
>

in that case the contract is not "broken".

"Julie Bove" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ophelia" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> "sf" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 14:34:58 -0700, "Cheri" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Julie Bove" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> > Ha! Not always clean. We made the mistake of going into the one by
>>>> > Golden Gate Park, mainly because I needed to use the restroom.
>>>> > Afterwards, the young woman sitting in the sink and applying her
>>>> > makeup
>>>> > informed me that there was no running water in there and never had
>>>> > been.
>>>> > Luckily I had baby wipes with me but... Eek! The we usually went to
>>>> > (not
>>>> > that we went there often) on Staten Island wasn't so great either.
>>>>
>>>> There was no running water in a McD's in SF? I don't believe that at
>>>> all,
>>>> unless they happened to be experiencing plumbing problems on that
>>>> particular
>>>> day. How did they flush the toilets without water?
>>>>
>>> She's delusional.
>>
>> Has it occurred to you that the woman sitting IN the
>> sink just didn't want to move and gave that story so that she didn't have
>> to? I man, how often do you see people sitting IN sinks. Julie had no
>> way
>> to prove otherwise did she? Would you start an argument with some loonie
>> sitting IN a sink??
>
> That did occur to me. But bottom line, the bathroom was filthy and I had
> no way to wash my hands. As I said, the workers in there didn't seem to
> care about much of anything and the woman seemed like she was in there all
> the time. At least that's what she told me so... I didn't bother to tell
> them, figuring they would do nothing.

And you were probably correct!

--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

"Janet" > wrote in message
t...
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>> On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 16:40:05 +0100, Janet > wrote:
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > says...
>> > >
>> > > On Sat, 06 Jul 2013 18:39:16 -0600, casa bona > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > How can a "without cause" law be something anyone would pass,
>> > > > especially
>> > > > the French?
>> >
>> > It means that employees under 26 are on probation and do not "get
>> > tenure" until they've worked in a job for two years.
>> > >
>> > > We have "at will" employment here in the USA.
>> >
>> > AIUI plenty of employees in the USA have jobs which are without
>> > tenure
>> > until they have srved a probation of several years.
>> >
>> > http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/5/315.201
>> >
>>
>> Employment is not guaranteed in the USA.
>
> Nor is it in Europe where there are many worker-protections that are
> graduated by age, and length of employment, so don't kick in as soon as
> someone starts the job. When they do, it doesn't mean the employee is
> unsackable.
>

perhaps in theory, but much less so in practice.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 16:34:35 -0600, "graham" > wrote:
>
>> And, sadly, more cultural arrogance from you.
>> Graham
>
> And, we're perceiving cultural arrogance from you.
>
That's because you haven't looked in a mirror lately!

Ophelia wrote:
>
> Has it occurred to you that the woman sitting IN the
> sink just didn't want to move and gave that story so that she didn't have
> to? I man, how often do you see people sitting IN sinks. Julie had no way
> to prove otherwise did she? Would you start an argument with some loonie
> sitting IN a sink?

Regardless of whether the sink worked or not, Julie said the bathroom was
filthy so she wouldn't have used it anyway.

This scenario reminds me of an old joke:
A marine and an air-force guy go into a public bathroom.
After they both pee, the marine goes to wash his hands.
The air-force guy just heads out the door, skipping the handwashing.
Marine: In the Marines they teach us to wash our hand after peeing.
Air-Force: Well, in the Air Force, they teach us not to pee on our hands.

:-D
G.

Pico Rico wrote:
>
> "Janet" > wrote in message
> t...
> > In article >,
> > says...
> >>
> >> On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 16:40:05 +0100, Janet > wrote:
> >>
> >> > In article >,
> >> > says...
> >> > >
> >> > > On Sat, 06 Jul 2013 18:39:16 -0600, casa bona > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > How can a "without cause" law be something anyone would pass,
> >> > > > especially
> >> > > > the French?
> >> >
> >> > It means that employees under 26 are on probation and do not "get
> >> > tenure" until they've worked in a job for two years.
> >> > >
> >> > > We have "at will" employment here in the USA.
> >> >
> >> > AIUI plenty of employees in the USA have jobs which are without
> >> > tenure
> >> > until they have srved a probation of several years.
> >> >
> >> > http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/5/315.201
> >> >
> >>
> >> Employment is not guaranteed in the USA.
> >
> > Nor is it in Europe where there are many worker-protections that are
> > graduated by age, and length of employment, so don't kick in as soon as
> > someone starts the job. When they do, it doesn't mean the employee is
> > unsackable.
> >
>
> perhaps in theory, but much less so in practice.

This whole tread has taken a stupid turn, imo. There should be no "tenure"
on any job. If an employee is a good one, the employer will act to keep
that person on and award them appropriately. If you slack off, don't do
your job so well and even maybe cause problems with others, it's time for
you to go.

G.

"Gary" > wrote in message ...
> Ophelia wrote:
>>
>> Has it occurred to you that the woman sitting IN the
>> sink just didn't want to move and gave that story so that she didn't have
>> to? I man, how often do you see people sitting IN sinks. Julie had no
>> way
>> to prove otherwise did she? Would you start an argument with some loonie
>> sitting IN a sink?
>
> Regardless of whether the sink worked or not, Julie said the bathroom was
> filthy so she wouldn't have used it anyway.

Quite so!

> This scenario reminds me of an old joke:
> A marine and an air-force guy go into a public bathroom.
> After they both pee, the marine goes to wash his hands.
> The air-force guy just heads out the door, skipping the handwashing.
> Marine: In the Marines they teach us to wash our hand after peeing.
> Air-Force: Well, in the Air Force, they teach us not to pee on our hands.

Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

graham wrote:
>
> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 16:34:35 -0600, "graham" > wrote:
> >
> >> And, sadly, more cultural arrogance from you.
> >> Graham
> >
> > And, we're perceiving cultural arrogance from you.
> >
> That's because you haven't looked in a mirror lately!

Again I'll say this. When you travel to another country, you should humble
yourself and adopt their ways while being a guest in their area. You should
politely accept what they offer. "When in Rome, do like the Romans do."
This is the way you get along with people from other cultures.

Travelers/tourists from other countries are ambassadors for their country
whether they realize it or not. If you act like an asshole in another
country, it does reflect on your own country.

G.

"Gary" > wrote in message ...
> Pico Rico wrote:
>>
>> "Janet" > wrote in message
>> t...
>> > In article >,
>> > says...
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 16:40:05 +0100, Janet > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > In article >,
>> >> >
>> >> > says...
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On Sat, 06 Jul 2013 18:39:16 -0600, casa bona > wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > How can a "without cause" law be something anyone would pass,
>> >> > > > especially
>> >> > > > the French?
>> >> >
>> >> > It means that employees under 26 are on probation and do not "get
>> >> > tenure" until they've worked in a job for two years.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > We have "at will" employment here in the USA.
>> >> >
>> >> > AIUI plenty of employees in the USA have jobs which are without
>> >> > tenure
>> >> > until they have srved a probation of several years.
>> >> >
>> >> > http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/5/315.201
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Employment is not guaranteed in the USA.
>> >
>> > Nor is it in Europe where there are many worker-protections that are
>> > graduated by age, and length of employment, so don't kick in as soon as
>> > someone starts the job. When they do, it doesn't mean the employee is
>> > unsackable.
>> >
>>
>> perhaps in theory, but much less so in practice.
>
> This whole tread has taken a stupid turn, imo. There should be no "tenure"
> on any job. If an employee is a good one, the employer will act to keep
> that person on and award them appropriately. If you slack off, don't do
> your job so well and even maybe cause problems with others, it's time for
> you to go.

and if the employer is a dope who fires good employees, he won't last long,
and that problem is solved.

"Gary" > wrote in message ...
> graham wrote:
>>
>> "sf" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 16:34:35 -0600, "graham" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> And, sadly, more cultural arrogance from you.
>> >> Graham
>> >
>> > And, we're perceiving cultural arrogance from you.
>> >
>> That's because you haven't looked in a mirror lately!
>
> Again I'll say this. When you travel to another country, you should
> humble
> yourself and adopt their ways while being a guest in their area. You
> should
> politely accept what they offer. "When in Rome, do like the Romans do."
> This is the way you get along with people from other cultures.
>
> Travelers/tourists from other countries are ambassadors for their country
> whether they realize it or not. If you act like an asshole in another
> country, it does reflect on your own country.
>
I agree and that was the point of my original post.
Graham

On 08/07/2013 9:36 AM, Gary wrote:
> Ophelia wrote:
>>
>> Has it occurred to you that the woman sitting IN the
>> sink just didn't want to move and gave that story so that she didn't have
>> to? I man, how often do you see people sitting IN sinks. Julie had no way
>> to prove otherwise did she? Would you start an argument with some loonie
>> sitting IN a sink?
>
> Regardless of whether the sink worked or not, Julie said the bathroom was
> filthy so she wouldn't have used it anyway.

No regardless about it or not. It never happened. McD's, despite the
quality of their food, which some people actually like, would not allow
a store in the chain that did not have running water in the bathroom.

>

On 7/8/2013 2:03 AM, Janet wrote:
> In article >, says...
>>
>> "Janet" > wrote in message
>> t...
>>> In article >, says...
>>>>
>>>> "sf" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>>> She's delusional.
>>>>
>>>> The woman in the sink may have been. I know I'm not. She is the one who
>>>> told me there was no running water.
>>>
>>> You're the one who believed it.
>>
>> You're missing the point! The sink was unusable.
>
> Because she was sitting it. Not because of the fairy story you were
> daft enough to believe.
>
> Janet UK
>
She reported factually on a yucky situation, is there a problem with that?

On 7/8/2013 7:21 AM, graham wrote:
> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 16:34:35 -0600, "graham" > wrote:
>>
>>> And, sadly, more cultural arrogance from you.
>>> Graham
>>
>> And, we're perceiving cultural arrogance from you.
>>
> That's because you haven't looked in a mirror lately!
>
>
Your reflection is eluding you, for good reason.

On 7/8/2013 7:54 AM, Gary wrote:
> graham wrote:
>>
>> "sf" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 16:34:35 -0600, "graham" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> And, sadly, more cultural arrogance from you.
>>>> Graham
>>>
>>> And, we're perceiving cultural arrogance from you.
>>>
>> That's because you haven't looked in a mirror lately!
>
> Again I'll say this. When you travel to another country, you should humble
> yourself and adopt their ways while being a guest in their area. You should
> politely accept what they offer. "When in Rome, do like the Romans do."
> This is the way you get along with people from other cultures.

My but you are remarkably submissive!

> Travelers/tourists from other countries are ambassadors for their country
> whether they realize it or not. If you act like an asshole in another
> country, it does reflect on your own country.
>
> G.
>
Suppose you exhibit a mannerly divergence from local norms, is that a sin?

On 7/8/2013 8:04 AM, graham wrote:
> "Gary" > wrote in message ...
>> graham wrote:
>>>
>>> "sf" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 16:34:35 -0600, "graham" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And, sadly, more cultural arrogance from you.
>>>>> Graham
>>>>
>>>> And, we're perceiving cultural arrogance from you.
>>>>
>>> That's because you haven't looked in a mirror lately!
>>
>> Again I'll say this. When you travel to another country, you should
>> humble
>> yourself and adopt their ways while being a guest in their area. You
>> should
>> politely accept what they offer. "When in Rome, do like the Romans do."
>> This is the way you get along with people from other cultures.
>>
>> Travelers/tourists from other countries are ambassadors for their country
>> whether they realize it or not. If you act like an asshole in another
>> country, it does reflect on your own country.
>>
> I agree and that was the point of my original post.
> Graham
>
>
Yet the actual effect was to demean Americans and you doubled down when
caught at it.