"Cindy Hamilton" > wrote in message
.. .
> In article >,
> Julie Bove > wrote:
>>
>>"Gary" > wrote in message
...
>>> Ophelia wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Oh dear, I said I wouldn't do this Ok I am done)
>>>>
>>>> Before anyone shouts at me it is all Cindy's fault))))
>>>
>>> I AGREE! It IS all Cindy's fault. I just responded to her too even
>>> though I know I will envoke the wrath of some here.
>>
>>It's her fault because she didn't watch Seinfeld.
>>
>
> Would it help if I streamed all of the Seinfeld episodes and watched
> them?
>
> Of course, that would cut into my time for watching curling.

Is your hair very straight then ...

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

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 12/12/2013 6:13 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>
>>
>> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 12/11/2013 3:57 PM, sf wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 11 Dec 2013 13:25:08 -0500, jmcquown >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Now I'm wondering if the requests for the employee holiday gift fund
>>>>> could have been applied towards the dining minimum. I found it rather
>>>>> odd they were requesting money to give the island employees holiday
>>>>> bonuses. Final talley, they'd collected over $75,000 so they could
>>>>> split it and cut bonus checks for the landscapers (not that they take
>>>>> care of our yards), security guards, the folks who work in accounting,
>>>>> etc. Allegedly divided equally.
>>>>>
>>>>> Were these out-of-pocket donations? Or could that have been deducted
>>>>> from the dining minimum, too? I sent an email asking about it. I'm
>>>>> waiting to hear back.
>>>>
>>>> They're sounding like Walmart and them asking customers to contribute
>>>> to Thanksgiving baskets for needy employees! Why don't they pay their
>>>> employees enough to tide them through the year, so you can tip those
>>>> you may wish to tip on your own?
>>>>
>>> That was kind of my thinking about it, sf. I was told it was strictly
>>> out of pocket donations. But really, why do I need to help them pay
>>> their employees? The whole operation makes enough money to pay these
>>> people well. If some individuals did something helpful I'd be happy
>>> to tip them - separately.
>>
>> It is a disgrace if they are saying their employees are so needy they
>> are asking for donations!!! Surely they can't mean that they don't pay
>> enough so want you to make up the difference???? If so I simply can't
>> believe the cheek!
>>
> That's how it sounds to me, Ophelia. They instituted a 20% service charge
> on all meals a couple of years ago, so that's an automatic "tip" for the
> servers, bartenders and kitchen staff. Chances are the servers are only
> earning the federal minumum ($2.13/hr) but the cooks and other kitchen
> staff make more.
>
> In fact, the last time I was in there to pick up my fish & chips (and got
> no chips, bloody fools!), the guy who gave me the free glass of wine said
> he'd been working there since the Club opened. That would mean he's been
> there since the 1980s. No doubt he could have moved on if he wanted to.
>
> I can't think of a single reason why anyone would need to be ponying up
> money for them to give employee bonuses.

Oh I can! More money out of your pocket, more in the pockets of the
shareholders!

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

In article >, says...
>
> The dry cleaner I applied at, expected me to be up, showered and dressed by
> 8:00 a.m., 6 days a week

8 am, eh? Imagine that.

Good thing you never worked in a restaurant serving breakfasts,
hospital, school, hotel, care home , factory shifts etc.

Janet UK

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

> >> They also seem to
> >> tolerate squatters. Or they used to.
> >
> > Rubbish
>
> I said used to. My friend, his friend and some others did in fact squat for
> several months in England and he said nobody bothered them or tried to kick
> them out.

That doesn't follow they were "tolerated"; more likely it means the
owner just could not afford the time and high legal cost of civil court
expenses to evict them.

Now the law has changed, its a criminal (not civil) offence and the
owner pays nothing for the police to remove, arrest and charge
squatters.

Janet UK

On 12/13/2013 1:25 PM, Janet wrote:
> In article >, says...
>>
>> The dry cleaner I applied at, expected me to be up, showered and dressed by
>> 8:00 a.m., 6 days a week
>
Did they check to make sure you'd taken a shower? <G>

> 8 am, eh? Imagine that.
>
Heh. I worked on a help desk for years. I had to be there by 7AM when
the phones turned on automatically. We were located in the US Central
time zone. But a lot of our offices were open an hour earlier, so we
opened at 7AM. There was also a 9:30- 6PM shift to cover the offices
who were on Pacific time. No big deal.

> Good thing you never worked in a restaurant serving breakfasts,
> hospital, school, hotel, care home , factory shifts etc.
>
> Janet UK
>
I understand wanting the day shift, for sure. But being up, showered
and dressed (not to mention at work) by 8:00 a.m. isn't asking too much.

Jill

On 12/13/2013 1:12 PM, Ophelia wrote:
>
> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>
>>> It is a disgrace if they are saying their employees are so needy they
>>> are asking for donations!!! Surely they can't mean that they don't pay
>>> enough so want you to make up the difference???? If so I simply can't
>>> believe the cheek!
>>>
>> That's how it sounds to me, Ophelia. They instituted a 20% service
>> charge on all meals a couple of years ago, so that's an automatic
>> "tip" for the servers, bartenders and kitchen staff. Chances are the
>> servers are only earning the federal minumum ($2.13/hr) but the cooks
>> and other kitchen staff make more.
>>
>> In fact, the last time I was in there to pick up my fish & chips (and
>> got no chips, bloody fools!), the guy who gave me the free glass of
>> wine said he'd been working there since the Club opened. That would
>> mean he's been there since the 1980s. No doubt he could have moved on
>> if he wanted to.
>>
>> I can't think of a single reason why anyone would need to be ponying
>> up money for them to give employee bonuses.
>
> Oh I can! More money out of your pocket, more in the pockets of the
> shareholders!
>
You're a cynic. So am I. I would gladly tip an employee personally
who did something special to help me out somehow. I would NOT write a
check to the DIC and hope and pray they actually divide that money
equally among the lesser paid (?) employees.

Jill
Jill

On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 16:51:16 -0800, "Reggie" >
wrote:

> Then you believe nothing from anyone, other than what you make up in your
> own mind. The fool you are!
>

Liars are laughed at and I am laughing. There is a single digit
percentage of people who will not be able to find the same or *better*
plan and an even smaller chance that one of them would pop up here.
Get lost Liar.

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

"Janet" > wrote in message
t...

>> Ah, okay. The squatter I knew did it in the 80's.
>
> and in the 80's, did the property owner tell you he tolerated your
> squatter friend? Or is that a conclusion you jumped to on the somewhat
> biased self-justification by one freeloading trespasser.

Obviously I didn't live in the UK nor have I even been there. I am just
basing this on what my friend told me.

"Janet" > wrote in message
t...
> In article >, says...
>>
>> The dry cleaner I applied at, expected me to be up, showered and dressed
>> by
>> 8:00 a.m., 6 days a week
>
> 8 am, eh? Imagine that.
>
> Good thing you never worked in a restaurant serving breakfasts,
> hospital, school, hotel, care home , factory shifts etc.

And I wouldn't have done any of those jobs. No interest in those. But...
I did work various shifts, including having to go in at 5:00 a.m. at K Mart,
occasionally working through the night, and going in at 3:00 a.m. to get the
coffee going for golf tournaments when I worked at the golf course. But in
these cases I knew in advance what the shift was.

There is no way I would get up and get fully ready for work when there was
only a very slight chance that they might be needing me that day. I would
also not stay home for 10 hours, 6 days a week on the same slight chance
that I might be need. I do have a life. One would be pretty desperate to
have to do that. Just sitting there waiting for potentially 60 hours a week
to what might amount to a mere $50, before taxes. And most likely it
wouldn't even be that much. More likely it would only bring in $10! Who
would do that? Who would even drive to work for those wages. I lived on
the one end of the Cape and they had one location clear on the other end.
With all the tourists that they get there, that could easily be a 2 hour
drive. And for what? To put in 2 hours of work? I don't think so. For 2
hours and those wages I'd do an odd job or babysitting that was nearby. But
not that!

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 12/13/2013 1:25 PM, Janet wrote:
>> In article >, says...
>>>
>>> The dry cleaner I applied at, expected me to be up, showered and dressed
>>> by
>>> 8:00 a.m., 6 days a week
>>
> Did they check to make sure you'd taken a shower? <G>
>
>> 8 am, eh? Imagine that.
>>
> Heh. I worked on a help desk for years. I had to be there by 7AM when
> the phones turned on automatically. We were located in the US Central
> time zone. But a lot of our offices were open an hour earlier, so we
> opened at 7AM. There was also a 9:30- 6PM shift to cover the offices who
> were on Pacific time. No big deal.

But I'm pretty sure they didn't expect you to get up and get dressed for
work on your days off *and* stay home all day, ready and eager to work, just
in case they needed you, right? According to what I was told, my only real
day off was on Sunday. I was free to do what I wanted then. And they could
only guaranteee me 10 hours a week which would be perhaps worked in two hour
increments. The logistics of that were never discussed because I thanked
the lady and walked out. This has nothing at all to do with getting up
early.

I have probably worked every shift there is between the inventory company
and all of the retail jobs that I worked. This has to do with the company
expecting me to get up early on the days that I was not scheduled to work.
Dress for work and stay home, waiting. Also telling me that I could only
smoke on Sundays or after 6:00 p.m. on all of the other days just in case
they might call me into work. And if they did call me in to work, I had to
go to any one of their 10 locations to be paid for probably no more than 10
hours a week, most likely in 2 hour shifts. I don't think so!

As I said to Janet, that could conceivably mean my sitting home for 60 hours
out of the week. Okay, probably 50 because 10 of those hours would have been
spent working somewhere for them. But if it was my day off and I wanted to
work in the garden? I would have to wait until after 6:00 p.m. because they
might call me in to work and I couldn't go in there in gardening clothes.
Nor would they allow me the time to clean up and change. Those were the
parameters of the job and if I wasn't willing to do that, they didn't want
me. And I didn't want them either. And AFAIK, nobody ever took that job.

I used to go by that dry cleaner all the time because my hairdresser and the
post office were in the same building. Always the same lady in there.
Never once saw anyone else and the "Help Wanted" sign was still there.
>
>> Good thing you never worked in a restaurant serving breakfasts,
>> hospital, school, hotel, care home , factory shifts etc.
>>
>> Janet UK
>>
> I understand wanting the day shift, for sure. But being up, showered and
> dressed (not to mention at work) by 8:00 a.m. isn't asking too much.

It isn't? I think it is! Especially when they can't guarantee any work.
So you would just get up and dressed for work. Not just dressed but dressed
for work as they told you to do, and then sit in your house until 6:00 p.m.
not going anywhere? And not doing anything that could involve your time
like baking a loaf of bread? Because that's what I was expected to do. Sit
by the phone and wait to see if they might need me to work. All for a
guarantee of a measly 10 hours a week at minimum wage which IIRC in those
days was $5 an hour. Well, have at it then. Not for me. Especially when I
had a husband who was working. Heck it was cheaper for me to stay home than
to go buy those clothes that they expected me to wear to work which were not
the clothes I even owned. Dress pants or a skirt and a blazer.

"Janet" > wrote in message
t...
> In article >, says...
>>
>> "Janet" > wrote in message
>
>> >> They also seem to
>> >> tolerate squatters. Or they used to.
>> >
>> > Rubbish
>>
>> I said used to. My friend, his friend and some others did in fact squat
>> for
>> several months in England and he said nobody bothered them or tried to
>> kick
>> them out.
>
> That doesn't follow they were "tolerated"; more likely it means the
> owner just could not afford the time and high legal cost of civil court
> expenses to evict them.
>
> Now the law has changed, its a criminal (not civil) offence and the
> owner pays nothing for the police to remove, arrest and charge
> squatters.

I just know that he said that nothing happened to them and they were there
for a while. Not sure the exact time frame but at least a few weeks. That
would not happen here and legal action would be taken right away.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 16:51:16 -0800, "Reggie" >
> wrote:
>
>> Then you believe nothing from anyone, other than what you make up in your
>> own mind. The fool you are!
>>
>
> Liars are laughed at and I am laughing. There is a single digit
> percentage of people who will not be able to find the same or *better*
> plan and an even smaller chance that one of them would pop up here.
> Get lost Liar.

I am not lying, but you are a dope.

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 12/13/2013 1:12 PM, Ophelia wrote:
>>
>> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>>
>>>> It is a disgrace if they are saying their employees are so needy they
>>>> are asking for donations!!! Surely they can't mean that they don't pay
>>>> enough so want you to make up the difference???? If so I simply can't
>>>> believe the cheek!
>>>>
>>> That's how it sounds to me, Ophelia. They instituted a 20% service
>>> charge on all meals a couple of years ago, so that's an automatic
>>> "tip" for the servers, bartenders and kitchen staff. Chances are the
>>> servers are only earning the federal minumum ($2.13/hr) but the cooks
>>> and other kitchen staff make more.
>>>
>>> In fact, the last time I was in there to pick up my fish & chips (and
>>> got no chips, bloody fools!), the guy who gave me the free glass of
>>> wine said he'd been working there since the Club opened. That would
>>> mean he's been there since the 1980s. No doubt he could have moved on
>>> if he wanted to.
>>>
>>> I can't think of a single reason why anyone would need to be ponying
>>> up money for them to give employee bonuses.
>>
>> Oh I can! More money out of your pocket, more in the pockets of the
>> shareholders!
>>
> You're a cynic. So am I. I would gladly tip an employee personally
> who did something special to help me out somehow. I would NOT write a
> check to the DIC and hope and pray they actually divide that money equally
> among the lesser paid (?) employees.

Well, I've said where I think it goes
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

"Julie Bove" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Janet" > wrote in message
> t...
>> In article >, says...
>>>
>>> The dry cleaner I applied at, expected me to be up, showered and dressed
>>> by
>>> 8:00 a.m., 6 days a week
>>
>> 8 am, eh? Imagine that.
>>
>> Good thing you never worked in a restaurant serving breakfasts,
>> hospital, school, hotel, care home , factory shifts etc.
>
> And I wouldn't have done any of those jobs. No interest in those.

You mean you've never been a hospital cleaner?????

No, nor have I!

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

"Julie Bove" > wrote in message
...

> I just know that he said that nothing happened to them and they were there
> for a while. Not sure the exact time frame but at least a few weeks.
> That would not happen here and legal action would be taken right away.

Yes, people did squat in England and did get away with it because they had
'squatters rights' and the owner had to go through the courts to regain his
property and then when he did get it back ... well, I bet that wasn't cheap
to put right all the damage.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-8793087.html

I think the law in England has been active for about one year only.

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

"Ophelia" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Julie Bove" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Janet" > wrote in message
>> t...
>>> In article >, says...
>>>>
>>>> The dry cleaner I applied at, expected me to be up, showered and
>>>> dressed by
>>>> 8:00 a.m., 6 days a week
>>>
>>> 8 am, eh? Imagine that.
>>>
>>> Good thing you never worked in a restaurant serving breakfasts,
>>> hospital, school, hotel, care home , factory shifts etc.
>>
>> And I wouldn't have done any of those jobs. No interest in those.
>
> You mean you've never been a hospital cleaner?????
>
> No, nor have I!

Nope.

"Ophelia" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Julie Bove" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> I just know that he said that nothing happened to them and they were
>> there for a while. Not sure the exact time frame but at least a few
>> weeks. That would not happen here and legal action would be taken right
>> away.
>
> Yes, people did squat in England and did get away with it because they had
> 'squatters rights' and the owner had to go through the courts to regain
> his property and then when he did get it back ... well, I bet that wasn't
> cheap to put right all the damage.
>
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-8793087.html
>
> I think the law in England has been active for about one year only.
>
> --
> http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

Thank you! I knew things had been different there than here.

In article >, says...

> Obviously I didn't live in the UK nor have I even been there. I am just
> basing this on what my friend told me.

Best not to make a sweeping generalisation about a country you've
never been to, based only on the second-hand boast of one lazy
freeloader.

Janet UK

In article >, says...
>
> "Janet" > wrote in message
> t...
>
> >> Ah, okay. The squatter I knew did it in the 80's.
> >
> > and in the 80's, did the property owner tell you he tolerated your
> > squatter friend? Or is that a conclusion you jumped to on the somewhat
> > biased self-justification by one freeloading trespasser.
>
> Obviously I didn't live in the UK nor have I even been there. I am just
> basing this on what my friend told me.

Well, next time, try not to judge the whole nation on the basis of one
second hand report.

Janet.

"Janet" > wrote in message
t...
> In article >, says...
>>
>> "Janet" > wrote in message
>> t...
>>
>> >> Ah, okay. The squatter I knew did it in the 80's.
>> >
>> > and in the 80's, did the property owner tell you he tolerated your
>> > squatter friend? Or is that a conclusion you jumped to on the somewhat
>> > biased self-justification by one freeloading trespasser.
>>
>> Obviously I didn't live in the UK nor have I even been there. I am just
>> basing this on what my friend told me.
>
> Well, next time, try not to judge the whole nation on the basis of one
> second hand report.

Gosh Julie, that was so upsetting it had to be answered twice)

I have already explained the old laws about squatting and the new laws for
which I gave you a link to the new law ... and which came into effect a year
ago. Don't have to live here to know that.

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

On 12/13/2013 10:25 PM, Reggie wrote:
> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 16:51:16 -0800, "Reggie" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Then you believe nothing from anyone, other than what you make up in your
>>> own mind. The fool you are!
>>>
>>
>> Liars are laughed at and I am laughing. There is a single digit
>> percentage of people who will not be able to find the same or *better*
>> plan and an even smaller chance that one of them would pop up here.
>> Get lost Liar.
>
> I am not lying, but you are a dope.
>
>
You got not much of a fair hearing hthere, eh?

On 12/12/2013 11:41 PM, Jacopo Peterman wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Dec 2013 07:45:14 -0800, sf wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 12 Dec 2013 14:53:32 GMT, (Cindy Hamilton)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> Sqwertz > wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 12 Dec 2013 00:15:40 -0500, jmcquown wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/11/2013 11:55 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Or do you think
>>>>>> Jill might pull an Elaine Benes on the pasta primavera? ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, too lazy to care who Elaine Benes is. I'm obviously not planning
>>>>> to do whatever she did to be banned from a restaurant kitchen.
>>>>
>>>> That must have been one hell of a deep cave you lived in if you don't
>>>> know who Elaine Benes is. Perhaps you're just not used to seeing it
>>>> spelled out (I had to look it up myself).
>>>
>>> Not everyone has seen Seinfeld. I haven't.
>>>
>>> Obviously I've heard of it, and knew it had a character named Elaine.
>>> At least, I could correctly answer the question, "Did 'Seinfeld' have
>>> a character named Elaine?" even if my answer to "Name the characters
>>> on 'Seinfeld'" would be "Um... Seinfeld?"
>>
>> Now you know what he does when he's not trolling 95 different usenet
>> groups.
>
> Aww, are you ladies feeling left out because you haven't seen one of
> the top 3 television series of all time?
>
> BTW Barbie, the 95-group troller is your boyfriend Casa Boner. This
> just adds more credibility to the theory that YOU are the projecting
> Casa Boner. You've already proved your psychoness under your own nym
> that it only stands to reason you'd invent another nym to air the rest
> of that pent-up loonyness. A Genuine psycho sock puppet.
>
> -sw
>
Hmmm...blocknews...sounds like a Sqwerty sock...eh?