On Sun, 7 Aug 2016 16:08:35 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On 8/7/2016 2:53 PM, Je?us wrote:
>
>>
>> Things must work a lot differently where you are, asshole.
>>
>
>Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

No problem, asshole. Just returning the favour.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2016-08-07 10:40 AM, Sky wrote:
>
>> Or, put some inexpensive, very realistic, 'fake' video cameras in
>> advantageous places around the house/property, along with a large yard
>> sign that says, "property under video surveillance". That might do the
>> trick, too.
>>
>
>
> I miss my old neighbour because the new guy is a jerk. I was walking the
> dog down the lane one day and caught the glint of a solar pan mounted on
> the utility pole, and what appeared to be a security camera. The next time
> I saw him out there I mentioned something about the camera and that it was
> probably a good idea. He told me his brother in law is in the business and
> set up a dozen cameras around the yard and no one could see any of them.
> Oh? I saw that one. I later spotted on further back and I wasn't even
> looking for them.

The cameras don't work. They're being stolen. My neighbor had cameras up and
they stole everything out of his Pods. They even stole the claw footed
bathtub. Every day I see videos on my neighborhood FB page of people on
camera, stealing things. Once in a while they are identified and caught.
Mostly not.

On Sun, 7 Aug 2016 12:59:20 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

>
>"Jeßus" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Sun, 7 Aug 2016 09:31:51 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>
>>>On 8/6/2016 10:57 PM, Je?us wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, of course I would be fine with it. You really can't deal with a
>>>> 20 second delay so a young person can let their parents know they are
>>>> working late? What an asshole you are.
>>>>
>>>
>>>How do you figure 20 seconds when the kids phone is in a locker? Store
>>>phone in the office?
>>
>> Why would the kids phone be in the locker, or the store phone stuck in
>> the office?
>
>Because they were assigned lockers and they were to put all personal
>possessions in there at the start of their shift. The lockers were in the
>back room.

Here, you just turn your freakin phone off or put it on silent.
Or can the supervisor not hand her a phone to make a quick call... you
guys have a really ****ed up way of doing things.

On Sun, 7 Aug 2016 12:58:09 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

>
>"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
>> On 8/6/2016 10:57 PM, Je?us wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Yes, of course I would be fine with it. You really can't deal with a
>>> 20 second delay so a young person can let their parents know they are
>>> working late? What an asshole you are.
>>>
>>
>> How do you figure 20 seconds when the kids phone is in a locker? Store
>> phone in the office? Carefully think about the logistics and see if it is
>> 20 seconds and who the asshole may be.
>
>Yep. She would have had to walk away from the line of customers, and there
>were many. Nobody else was there to assist. She said it was just her and the
>manager and he was the one doing the cooking.

Unbelievable. Something so simple is just too hard.

On Sun, 7 Aug 2016 16:07:22 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On 8/7/2016 2:52 PM, Je?us wrote:
>
>>
>> Why would the kids phone be in the locker, or the store phone stuck in
>> the office?
>
>That is the rules stated earlier. Eliminates distractions, I'm sure.
>Most stores don't have phones at the register.
>>
>>> Carefully think about the logistics and see if it
>>> is 20 seconds and who the asshole may be.
>>
>> Go **** yourself.
>>
>
>Classy retort.

I thought you'd like it. Go **** yourself again.

In article >, says...
>
> Bruce wrote:
> >
> > In article >, says...
> > >
> > > Bruce wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article >, says...
> > > > >
> > > > > jmcquown wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My SO sent me a painting of her for my birthday last month:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://s7.postimg.org/ubyhtf6cb/buffy_painting.jpg
> > > > >
> > > > > That's a nice gift. Did he paint it himself?
> > > >
> > > > Does it say "Biddy" in the bottom left corner?
> > >
> > > Ease up, Bruce. It was her birthday present from her SO.
> > > Even in RFC, people here should be allowed one day a year
> > > not to be picked on. :-D
> >
> > Ok, but that leaves 364.
>
> Yeah. There ya go. Feel free to pick on anyone those days. It's the way
> of RFC. LOL

lol, ok I'll get ready to have a go.

In article >,
says...
>
> On 8/7/2016 6:38 AM, Bruce wrote:
> > In article >, says...
> >>
> >> jmcquown wrote:
> >>>
> >>> My SO sent me a painting of her for my birthday last month:
> >>>
> >>> https://s7.postimg.org/ubyhtf6cb/buffy_painting.jpg
> >>
> >> That's a nice gift. Did he paint it himself?
> >
> > Does it say "Biddy" in the bottom left corner?
> >
> Does your stuff say "Old Fart" on the bottom?

How do you know that???

"Jeßus" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 7 Aug 2016 12:58:09 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
>>> On 8/6/2016 10:57 PM, Je?us wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, of course I would be fine with it. You really can't deal with a
>>>> 20 second delay so a young person can let their parents know they are
>>>> working late? What an asshole you are.
>>>>
>>>
>>> How do you figure 20 seconds when the kids phone is in a locker? Store
>>> phone in the office? Carefully think about the logistics and see if it
>>> is
>>> 20 seconds and who the asshole may be.
>>
>>Yep. She would have had to walk away from the line of customers, and there
>>were many. Nobody else was there to assist. She said it was just her and
>>the
>>manager and he was the one doing the cooking.
>
> Unbelievable. Something so simple is just too hard.

Not simple at all and if she had done that I am pretty sure she would have
been fired or at least written up. And the customers would likely have gone
elsewhere. I would have if I was in line and the cashier just walked off.

"Jeßus" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 7 Aug 2016 12:59:20 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jeßus" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Sun, 7 Aug 2016 09:31:51 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 8/6/2016 10:57 PM, Je?us wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, of course I would be fine with it. You really can't deal with a
>>>>> 20 second delay so a young person can let their parents know they are
>>>>> working late? What an asshole you are.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>How do you figure 20 seconds when the kids phone is in a locker? Store
>>>>phone in the office?
>>>
>>> Why would the kids phone be in the locker, or the store phone stuck in
>>> the office?
>>
>>Because they were assigned lockers and they were to put all personal
>>possessions in there at the start of their shift. The lockers were in the
>>back room.
>
> Here, you just turn your freakin phone off or put it on silent.
> Or can the supervisor not hand her a phone to make a quick call... you
> guys have a really ****ed up way of doing things.

Most retail businesses do not allow you to keep *any* personal possessions
on you. That's just a given. Of course you can have clothing and jewelry and
perhaps even a favorite pen from home. But keep a single hard candy in your
pocket and you could be fired. Certainly not your phone.

This is a small business. There was no supervisor. There was her and the 16
year old manager who was doing the cooking.

You have no business telling us that we are ****ed up. If where you live,
people are allowed to keep their cell phones on their person and make quick
phone calls on them when they are supposed to be working, then I'd want no
point of that.

Why? A lot of people have no self restraint and would constantly be on the
phone.

Even here, I saw something like this happen. I had a coupon for a free
bottle of soda. The cashier couldn't figure out how to ring it up. I told
her, repeatedly but she kept giving me a dumb look. She asked another
employee who was standing there. He didn't know either. She had to call a
manager and I had to stand there waiting. The problem? The coupon told her
to write in the price. She was looking on the coupon for the price and it
wasn't there. The manager told her exactly what I told her to do. Look at
the receipt for the price. Write that on the coupon and subtract that price
from the total.

Cashier just kept acting very detached about the whole thing. Not even a
smile. No apology for it taking so long. Then as soon as she got my money,
she tossed me the receipt, ran to the desk to clock out then got her phone
from behind the desk and made a phone call, right in front of me.

Now I blame the store for that. The stores where I worked always had the
time clock and lockers in an area that were not visible to the customers.
And if I were here, I would have gone somewhere more private to use the
phone. Don't do it right in front of the customer you fled from. Very rude.

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> On 8/7/2016 2:52 PM, Je�us wrote:
>
>>
>> Why would the kids phone be in the locker, or the store phone stuck in
>> the office?
>
> That is the rules stated earlier. Eliminates distractions, I'm sure. Most
> stores don't have phones at the register.
>>
>>> Carefully think about the logistics and see if it
>>> is 20 seconds and who the asshole may be.
>>
>> Go **** yourself.
>>
>
> Classy retort.

Yep.

"Jeßus" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 7 Aug 2016 16:08:35 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>>On 8/7/2016 2:53 PM, Je?us wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Things must work a lot differently where you are, asshole.
>>>
>>
>>Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
>
> No problem, asshole. Just returning the favour.

We don't have "u's" in or favors over here. Heh.

On Sun, 7 Aug 2016 14:25:47 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

>
>"Jeßus" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Sun, 7 Aug 2016 16:08:35 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>
>>>On 8/7/2016 2:53 PM, Je?us wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Things must work a lot differently where you are, asshole.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
>>
>> No problem, asshole. Just returning the favour.
>
>We don't have "u's" in or favors over here. Heh.

I know. Too many letters for you.

In article >, says...
>
> On Sun, 7 Aug 2016 16:07:22 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
> >On 8/7/2016 2:52 PM, Je?us wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Why would the kids phone be in the locker, or the store phone stuck in
> >> the office?
> >
> >That is the rules stated earlier. Eliminates distractions, I'm sure.
> >Most stores don't have phones at the register.
> >>
> >>> Carefully think about the logistics and see if it
> >>> is 20 seconds and who the asshole may be.
> >>
> >> Go **** yourself.
> >>
> >
> >Classy retort.
>
> I thought you'd like it. Go **** yourself again.

If anyone still wondered why this man lives in isolation...

"Bruce" > wrote in message
T...
> In article >, says...
>>
>> On Sun, 7 Aug 2016 16:07:22 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>
>> >On 8/7/2016 2:52 PM, Je?us wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Why would the kids phone be in the locker, or the store phone stuck in
>> >> the office?
>> >
>> >That is the rules stated earlier. Eliminates distractions, I'm sure.
>> >Most stores don't have phones at the register.
>> >>
>> >>> Carefully think about the logistics and see if it
>> >>> is 20 seconds and who the asshole may be.
>> >>
>> >> Go **** yourself.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Classy retort.
>>
>> I thought you'd like it. Go **** yourself again.
>
> If anyone still wondered why this man lives in isolation...

His whole town disowned him!

On Sun, 7 Aug 2016 07:06:04 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:

>On Sunday, August 7, 2016 at 9:22:31 AM UTC-4, Gary wrote:
>> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>> >
>> > I recall seeing the glow in the sky from burning buildings during the
>> > 1967 riots.
>>
>> Sure that wasn't 1968 right after MLK was assassinated?
>> I lived in the Wash DC suburbs then and all hell broke loose.
>
>No, it was '67.
>
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Detroit_riot>
>
>Cindy Hamilton
>
>Cindy Hamilton

Def 1967. I had just graduated from Cass Tech and lived between 6& 7
Mile near Livernois. We were in it on the edges.

"Bruce" wrote in message
T...

In article >, says...
>
> On Sun, 7 Aug 2016 16:07:22 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
> >On 8/7/2016 2:52 PM, Je?us wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Why would the kids phone be in the locker, or the store phone stuck in
> >> the office?
> >
> >That is the rules stated earlier. Eliminates distractions, I'm sure.
> >Most stores don't have phones at the register.
> >>
> >>> Carefully think about the logistics and see if it
> >>> is 20 seconds and who the asshole may be.
> >>
> >> Go **** yourself.
> >>
> >
> >Classy retort.
>
> I thought you'd like it. Go **** yourself again.

If anyone still wondered why this man lives in isolation...

----------------------------------------

He was like this before and then he went away for a while. When he came
back he had changed, but here we go again ...

Reverting to type.

--
http;//www.helpforheroes.org.uk

"Ophelia" > wrote in message
...
> "Bruce" wrote in message
> T...
>
> In article >, says...
>>
>> On Sun, 7 Aug 2016 16:07:22 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>
>> >On 8/7/2016 2:52 PM, Je?us wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Why would the kids phone be in the locker, or the store phone stuck in
>> >> the office?
>> >
>> >That is the rules stated earlier. Eliminates distractions, I'm sure.
>> >Most stores don't have phones at the register.
>> >>
>> >>> Carefully think about the logistics and see if it
>> >>> is 20 seconds and who the asshole may be.
>> >>
>> >> Go **** yourself.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Classy retort.
>>
>> I thought you'd like it. Go **** yourself again.
>
> If anyone still wondered why this man lives in isolation...
>
> ----------------------------------------
>
> He was like this before and then he went away for a while. When he came
> back he had changed, but here we go again ...
>
> Reverting to type.

He claims to be having dinner with a friend.

In article >,
says...
>
> "Bruce" wrote in message
> T...
>
> In article >, says...
> >
> > On Sun, 7 Aug 2016 16:07:22 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
> >
> > >On 8/7/2016 2:52 PM, Je?us wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Why would the kids phone be in the locker, or the store phone stuck in
> > >> the office?
> > >
> > >That is the rules stated earlier. Eliminates distractions, I'm sure.
> > >Most stores don't have phones at the register.
> > >>
> > >>> Carefully think about the logistics and see if it
> > >>> is 20 seconds and who the asshole may be.
> > >>
> > >> Go **** yourself.
> > >>
> > >
> > >Classy retort.
> >
> > I thought you'd like it. Go **** yourself again.
>
> If anyone still wondered why this man lives in isolation...
>
> ----------------------------------------
>
> He was like this before and then he went away for a while. When he came
> back he had changed, but here we go again ...
>
> Reverting to type.

He probably goes on and off his meds.

"Bruce" > wrote in message
T...
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>> "Bruce" wrote in message
>> T...
>>
>> In article >, says...
>> >
>> > On Sun, 7 Aug 2016 16:07:22 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>> >
>> > >On 8/7/2016 2:52 PM, Je?us wrote:
>> > >
>> > >>
>> > >> Why would the kids phone be in the locker, or the store phone stuck
>> > >> in
>> > >> the office?
>> > >
>> > >That is the rules stated earlier. Eliminates distractions, I'm sure.
>> > >Most stores don't have phones at the register.
>> > >>
>> > >>> Carefully think about the logistics and see if it
>> > >>> is 20 seconds and who the asshole may be.
>> > >>
>> > >> Go **** yourself.
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >Classy retort.
>> >
>> > I thought you'd like it. Go **** yourself again.
>>
>> If anyone still wondered why this man lives in isolation...
>>
>> ----------------------------------------
>>
>> He was like this before and then he went away for a while. When he came
>> back he had changed, but here we go again ...
>>
>> Reverting to type.
>
> He probably goes on and off his meds.

You're probably right.

tert in seattle wrote:

> The Greatest! wrote:
> > Jill is simply an inherently person...you could give her "happiness" on a solid gold plate, and she'd nag and whine endlessly about the plate
>
> I like to think of myself as inherently person
>
> or something like that



fvcken' tert...yer slayin' me over by here...


--
Best
Greg

Jill McQuown wrote:

> Then again, I don't sit around
> wondering what my neighbors are doing.


No, dearie, you just sit around wondering what posters on *rfc* are doing...


--
Best
Greg

Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>
> The primer was $43.99 per gallon. The paint was $65.99, but I caught
> them on a 40% off sale. Hallelujah!

Hi Cindy. Evidently SW does charge such high prices for those products.

I called them up this morning pretending to be a homeowner (no
contractor discount) and true enough, the same primer you bought costs
$42.99. The paint that you bought costs $65.99.

This is regular homeowners price. He did tell me that starting next
Friday, they have a 35% off sale.

Do know that these are their top of the line paints. They sell other
paints there that are equally good and a much lower price. I'm shocked
at these high prices I heard today.

Some of their equally good paints are almost half price normally.
Salesmen just want you to buy the top of the line paint.

Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>
> Frankly, the colors as they appear on my monitor don't look very much
> like the real thing.

Yeah, I did a google image search for your colors. The pictures show
several different shades. We get the idea though.

>
> When the project is finished, I'll put up some pictures on my web site.

I would be interested in seeing them. Thanks.

Julie Bove wrote:
>
> "Ophelia" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Bruce" wrote in message
> > T...
> >
> > In article >, says...
> >>
> >> On Sun, 7 Aug 2016 16:07:22 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 8/7/2016 2:52 PM, Je?us wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Why would the kids phone be in the locker, or the store phone stuck in
> >> >> the office?
> >> >
> >> >That is the rules stated earlier. Eliminates distractions, I'm sure.
> >> >Most stores don't have phones at the register.
> >> >>
> >> >>> Carefully think about the logistics and see if it
> >> >>> is 20 seconds and who the asshole may be.
> >> >>
> >> >> Go **** yourself.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Classy retort.
> >>
> >> I thought you'd like it. Go **** yourself again.
> >
> > If anyone still wondered why this man lives in isolation...
> >
> > ----------------------------------------
> >
> > He was like this before and then he went away for a while. When he came
> > back he had changed, but here we go again ...
> >
> > Reverting to type.
>
> He claims to be having dinner with a friend.

Why would you think that's odd? He probably DID have dinner with a
friend.
Even loner ME does that occasionally.

On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 9:30:31 AM UTC-4, Gary wrote:
> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> >
> > The primer was $43.99 per gallon. The paint was $65.99, but I caught
> > them on a 40% off sale. Hallelujah!
>
> Hi Cindy. Evidently SW does charge such high prices for those products.
>
> I called them up this morning pretending to be a homeowner (no
> contractor discount) and true enough, the same primer you bought costs
> $42.99. The paint that you bought costs $65.99.
>
> This is regular homeowners price. He did tell me that starting next
> Friday, they have a 35% off sale.
>
> Do know that these are their top of the line paints. They sell other
> paints there that are equally good and a much lower price. I'm shocked
> at these high prices I heard today.
>
> Some of their equally good paints are almost half price normally.
> Salesmen just want you to buy the top of the line paint.

I hate painting and I'm not that good at it, so I want the best paint
I can get. Goes on easier and lasts longer. I painted my living room
15 years ago, and except for where it's scuffed a little in the traffic
zones, it looks as good as it did the day it dried. That was with SW
Superpaint, which it looks like they've reformulated to be "paint and
primer in one". Hah.

Cindy Hamilton

"Bruce" wrote in message
T...

In article >,
says...
>
> "Bruce" wrote in message
> T...
>
> In article >, says...
> >
> > On Sun, 7 Aug 2016 16:07:22 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
> >
> > >On 8/7/2016 2:52 PM, Je?us wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Why would the kids phone be in the locker, or the store phone stuck
> > >> in
> > >> the office?
> > >
> > >That is the rules stated earlier. Eliminates distractions, I'm sure.
> > >Most stores don't have phones at the register.
> > >>
> > >>> Carefully think about the logistics and see if it
> > >>> is 20 seconds and who the asshole may be.
> > >>
> > >> Go **** yourself.
> > >>
> > >
> > >Classy retort.
> >
> > I thought you'd like it. Go **** yourself again.
>
> If anyone still wondered why this man lives in isolation...
>
> ----------------------------------------
>
> He was like this before and then he went away for a while. When he came
> back he had changed, but here we go again ...
>
> Reverting to type.

He probably goes on and off his meds.

----------------------------------------

Could be. It was all going fine and then boooom off he went and you see
what he is like now.


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

On Mon, 08 Aug 2016 09:37:19 -0400, Gary > wrote:

>Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>> "Ophelia" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "Bruce" wrote in message
>> > T...
>> >
>> > In article >, says...
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, 7 Aug 2016 16:07:22 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On 8/7/2016 2:52 PM, Je?us wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Why would the kids phone be in the locker, or the store phone stuck in
>> >> >> the office?
>> >> >
>> >> >That is the rules stated earlier. Eliminates distractions, I'm sure.
>> >> >Most stores don't have phones at the register.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> Carefully think about the logistics and see if it
>> >> >>> is 20 seconds and who the asshole may be.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Go **** yourself.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Classy retort.
>> >>
>> >> I thought you'd like it. Go **** yourself again.
>> >
>> > If anyone still wondered why this man lives in isolation...
>> >
>> > ----------------------------------------
>> >
>> > He was like this before and then he went away for a while. When he came
>> > back he had changed, but here we go again ...
>> >
>> > Reverting to type.
>>
>> He claims to be having dinner with a friend.
>
>Why would you think that's odd? He probably DID have dinner with a
>friend.

I only got back home this morning, slightly hung over too...

>Even loner ME does that occasionally.

Gasp!

On 8/6/2016 9:04 PM, cshenk wrote:
> Cheryl wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
>> On 7/26/2016 3:48 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>>> She'd get dressed, drive to work, only to have them tell her that
>>> she wasn't needed that day. When she tried to call ahead of time to
>>> see if she was needed, they told her that she wasn't allowed to
>>> call them. Or on the few occasions that she did work, they'd tell
>>> her that she had to stay late but wouldn't allow her to call and
>>> tell us this. This of course left her dad and I wondering where she
>>> was. The only thing we could do was drive there and see if her car
>>> was outside. He did call once to see if she was still there and she
>>> got in trouble for him calling.
>>
>> I'm sorry Julie but I find this very hard to believe. You might have
>> answered it later because as you can tell I'm not replying to a
>> current post because I've just been too busy. They wouldn't allow an
>> 18 year old to call home to say she has to work late? No fk'n way is
>> that happening anywhere.
>
> Agreed. This is bogus.
>
IF it happened to be true, the first thing to do is file a complaint
with the local branch of the county Department of Labor. How can a
business employ teenagers who live at home and not allow them to call
their parents if they're being asked to work late? Doesn't make a lick
of sense.

It also doesn't make sense that Angela could not call where she worked
to find out if she was on the schedule. I've never ever heard of a
company doing business that way, not even a small Mom & Pop type place.

Jill

On 8/6/2016 9:53 PM, Doris Night wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Aug 2016 20:04:56 -0500, "cshenk" > wrote:
>
>> Cheryl wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>>
>>> On 7/26/2016 3:48 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>>
>>>> She'd get dressed, drive to work, only to have them tell her that
>>>> she wasn't needed that day. When she tried to call ahead of time to
>>>> see if she was needed, they told her that she wasn't allowed to
>>>> call them. Or on the few occasions that she did work, they'd tell
>>>> her that she had to stay late but wouldn't allow her to call and
>>>> tell us this. This of course left her dad and I wondering where she
>>>> was. The only thing we could do was drive there and see if her car
>>>> was outside. He did call once to see if she was still there and she
>>>> got in trouble for him calling.
>>>
>>> I'm sorry Julie but I find this very hard to believe. You might have
>>> answered it later because as you can tell I'm not replying to a
>>> current post because I've just been too busy. They wouldn't allow an
>>> 18 year old to call home to say she has to work late? No fk'n way is
>>> that happening anywhere.
>>
>> Agreed. This is bogus.
>
> I would think that most parents would report this typeof thing to
> Employment Standards (or whatever it's called in the US).
>
> Doris
>
I agree, Doris, most parents wouldn't put up with it if their
living-at-home teens were not allowed to call from work to say they have
to work later than expected. And somehow I don't believe a parent can't
call their teen at work to ask when they'll be home. It's what, a 45
second phone call?

The first thing that popped into my mind was contact the local Labor
Board and file a complaint against the business. There *is* a local
listing for her county.

Jill

On 8/6/2016 10:19 PM, Nancy Young wrote:
> On 8/6/2016 9:53 PM, Doris Night wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Aug 2016 20:04:56 -0500, "cshenk" > wrote:
>>
>>> Cheryl wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
>>>> current post because I've just been too busy. They wouldn't allow an
>>>> 18 year old to call home to say she has to work late? No fk'n way is
>>>> that happening anywhere.
>>>
>>> Agreed. This is bogus.
>>
>> I would think that most parents would report this typeof thing to
>> Employment Standards (or whatever it's called in the US).
>
> 18 is an adult, if she has something to complain about, it's her
> job to take care of it. She's even allowed to not go home after
> work if she doesn't want to.
>
> I do not believe she was not permitted to call or text to say
> she was going to be working late, what if someone was supposed
> to pick her up. Maybe she says that to keep her parents from
> hovering.
>
> nancy

That's probably more like it.

Jill

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 8/6/2016 9:04 PM, cshenk wrote:
>> Cheryl wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>>
>>> On 7/26/2016 3:48 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>>
>>>> She'd get dressed, drive to work, only to have them tell her that
>>>> she wasn't needed that day. When she tried to call ahead of time to
>>>> see if she was needed, they told her that she wasn't allowed to
>>>> call them. Or on the few occasions that she did work, they'd tell
>>>> her that she had to stay late but wouldn't allow her to call and
>>>> tell us this. This of course left her dad and I wondering where she
>>>> was. The only thing we could do was drive there and see if her car
>>>> was outside. He did call once to see if she was still there and she
>>>> got in trouble for him calling.
>>>
>>> I'm sorry Julie but I find this very hard to believe. You might have
>>> answered it later because as you can tell I'm not replying to a
>>> current post because I've just been too busy. They wouldn't allow an
>>> 18 year old to call home to say she has to work late? No fk'n way is
>>> that happening anywhere.
>>
>> Agreed. This is bogus.
>>
> IF it happened to be true, the first thing to do is file a complaint with
> the local branch of the county Department of Labor. How can a business
> employ teenagers who live at home and not allow them to call their parents
> if they're being asked to work late? Doesn't make a lick of sense.

Oh come on. Seriously? They were not in violation of ANYTHING! I take it
that you didn't work as a teen? I did. My schedule at the time though was
open ended. I had a start time. No end time.
>
> It also doesn't make sense that Angela could not call where she worked to
> find out if she was on the schedule. I've never ever heard of a company
> doing business that way, not even a small Mom & Pop type place.

Doesn't matter if it makes sense or not. That's what happened and that's why
nobody we know works there now. It wasn't a mom and pop place. If I gave the
name, you'd know it. I won't do that though. They're getting enough bad
press from Yelp and the like.

And you totally misread what I said. She WAS on the schedule so they
expected her to show up for work. But then when she did show up, they'd say
that they decided they didn't need her so she should go home. That's when I
told her that she should call first and confirm that she would in fact be
needed. But she was told that she could not do this. And no, I did not ask
the establishment about this. I know quite a few people who were employed by
them. This is what they did.

When I lived on Cape Cod, I had applied for work at a dry cleaner. I did
mention this before and countless people misread what I said. But in a
nutshell, they could only guarantee me 10 hours of work per week. But I was
still expected to be up and dressed for work by 8:00 a.m. every morning. And
I had to sit at home, ready to leave at a moment's notice for work anywhere
on the Cape. So from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., I had to sit there waiting
in case I was needed. I also was not allowed to smoke or wear perfume during
those house lest I did get called in and offend a customer. I just laughed
and turned that job right down.

Do you think they found an employee who was willing to do that? Nope. And
yet this was the kind of crap a lot of places there tried to do. They could
probably get away with it too because jobs were hard to come by there. An
office supply store wanted me to use my own car after hours for no pay to
deliver stuff for them. Again, nope.

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 8/6/2016 9:53 PM, Doris Night wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Aug 2016 20:04:56 -0500, "cshenk" > wrote:
>>
>>> Cheryl wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>>>
>>>> On 7/26/2016 3:48 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> She'd get dressed, drive to work, only to have them tell her that
>>>>> she wasn't needed that day. When she tried to call ahead of time to
>>>>> see if she was needed, they told her that she wasn't allowed to
>>>>> call them. Or on the few occasions that she did work, they'd tell
>>>>> her that she had to stay late but wouldn't allow her to call and
>>>>> tell us this. This of course left her dad and I wondering where she
>>>>> was. The only thing we could do was drive there and see if her car
>>>>> was outside. He did call once to see if she was still there and she
>>>>> got in trouble for him calling.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sorry Julie but I find this very hard to believe. You might have
>>>> answered it later because as you can tell I'm not replying to a
>>>> current post because I've just been too busy. They wouldn't allow an
>>>> 18 year old to call home to say she has to work late? No fk'n way is
>>>> that happening anywhere.
>>>
>>> Agreed. This is bogus.
>>
>> I would think that most parents would report this typeof thing to
>> Employment Standards (or whatever it's called in the US).
>>
>> Doris
>>
> I agree, Doris, most parents wouldn't put up with it if their
> living-at-home teens were not allowed to call from work to say they have
> to work later than expected. And somehow I don't believe a parent can't
> call their teen at work to ask when they'll be home. It's what, a 45
> second phone call?
>
> The first thing that popped into my mind was contact the local Labor Board
> and file a complaint against the business. There *is* a local listing for
> her county.

Sure, Jebus/Jill, sure. You live in a dream world. They did not violate any
sort of anything. Businesses do this sort of thing all the time! Especially
restaurants. There is no way I would file a complaint. What would that
complaint even be? They didn't let my kid use the phone when I know full
well that phone use isn't allowed while she is working? That they asked her
to stay late and she agreed? They didn't even tell her that she had to but I
can well imagine that scenario happening as well. It happened to me more
times than I can recall when I was working.

When I worked at Jafco, I had my clocked in work and my clocked out work.
They assigned every single one of us to an hour of work off the clock after
every shift. Didn't always take me an hour to do it but often it did. My job
was to package up defective merchandise to be sent back to the company that
made it.

K Mart did similar. If we had the misfortune of working the late shift, we
were required to spend 10-15 minutes straightening things up before we were
allowed to leave. This was only when one manager was there. The others
didn't make us do it. I have heard many similar stories from people who
worked at other stores and restaurants. Restaurant employees often have to
set tables, fill salt shakers and other such tasks before they can leave.
May be after their scheduled shift and may not get paid for it.

Don't like doing that? There's the door.

Also, anyone who runs a cash register knows full well that no matter what
time they were scheduled to work, they may not be leaving then. Such is the
nature of that kind of work. You don't just walk away from your customers
when your shift is over. You can't always just close your line down. And
there won't always be another employee to take over for you.

I used to have to work every Christmas Eve at K Mart. Even when I wasn't a
cashier, I wound up doing that work at closing time. We all did in an effort
to get the customers out of the store. After the first couple of years, my
family came to realize that they'd see me when they'd see me. On that day I
might be leaving the store two hours after the end of my scheduled shift
because it could take that long to get all the customers out of the store.
And for many years there was this one lady who came in late to do all of her
Christmas shopping and she almost had to be physcially removed, kicking and
screaming all the way. She just would not leave. Of course I exaggerate when
I say this but it sure felt like that to those of us who just wanted to
leave!

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 8/6/2016 10:19 PM, Nancy Young wrote:
>> On 8/6/2016 9:53 PM, Doris Night wrote:
>>> On Sat, 06 Aug 2016 20:04:56 -0500, "cshenk" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Cheryl wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>>
>>>>> current post because I've just been too busy. They wouldn't allow an
>>>>> 18 year old to call home to say she has to work late? No fk'n way is
>>>>> that happening anywhere.
>>>>
>>>> Agreed. This is bogus.
>>>
>>> I would think that most parents would report this typeof thing to
>>> Employment Standards (or whatever it's called in the US).
>>
>> 18 is an adult, if she has something to complain about, it's her
>> job to take care of it. She's even allowed to not go home after
>> work if she doesn't want to.
>>
>> I do not believe she was not permitted to call or text to say
>> she was going to be working late, what if someone was supposed
>> to pick her up. Maybe she says that to keep her parents from
>> hovering.
>>
>> nancy
>
> That's probably more like it.

No, that's not even remotely like it.

On 8/6/2016 11:36 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>
> "Nancy Young" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> *I'm* not fixated on her. I can't even say why you would say such a
>>> thing.
>>
>> All you ever talk about boils down to you doing everything for
>> her because she can't or won't do it for herself.
>
> What? What did I do for her with this job? Nothing. Except to loan her a
> pair of my shoes because she didn't have any black ones and the ones she
> was required to mail order hadn't arrived yet.

Good Lord. The job required mail order shoes? Really? hers?! So,
what you "did do for her" was loan her a pair of *your* shoes. How
extremely generous of you. She must have been absolutely thrilled to
get your assuredly orthotic black shoes. Perhaps you'll teach her how
to use boot black and buff and shine them.

So, not an actual paying job. Way to pay attention to what your child
was doing.

>> > You seem to be making things up. You people here are the ones
>>> causing drama with your lala land where people can have jobs where they
>>> can just use the phone and text whenever they feel like it.
>>
Gawd, Julie. You're the one spouting off nonsense again. Need to call
home? Not a problem. That doesn't include calling everyone you know.

"She'd get dressed, drive to work, only to have them tell her that
she wasn't needed that day."
and:
"When she tried to call ahead of time to see if she was needed, they
told her that she wasn't allowed to call them."

I call bullshit. Sounds like another Bothell mini-series to me.

Jill

On Mon, 8 Aug 2016 17:45:15 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

>And you totally misread what I said. She WAS on the schedule so they
>expected her to show up for work. But then when she did show up, they'd say
>that they decided they didn't need her so she should go home. That's when I
>told her that she should call first and confirm that she would in fact be
>needed. But she was told that she could not do this. And no, I did not ask
>the establishment about this. I know quite a few people who were employed by
>them. This is what they did.

In Ontario, a shift has to be a minimum of 3 hours. If you are
scheduled to work, you have to be paid for that amount of time.
Goofing around by sending people home, as you described, isn't alowed.
I'm surprised that the U.S. doesn't have similar labour regulations.

Doris

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 8/6/2016 11:36 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>> "Nancy Young" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>> *I'm* not fixated on her. I can't even say why you would say such a
>>>> thing.
>>>
>>> All you ever talk about boils down to you doing everything for
>>> her because she can't or won't do it for herself.
>>
>> What? What did I do for her with this job? Nothing. Except to loan her a
>> pair of my shoes because she didn't have any black ones and the ones she
>> was required to mail order hadn't arrived yet.
>
> Good Lord. The job required mail order shoes? Really? hers?! So, what
> you "did do for her" was loan her a pair of *your* shoes. How extremely
> generous of you. She must have been absolutely thrilled to get your
> assuredly orthotic black shoes. Perhaps you'll teach her how to use boot
> black and buff and shine them.
>
I don't wear orthotics. Maybe you meant orthopedic shoes? I don't wear those
either. They were New Balance and she was less than thrilled because they
were a tad large and she hates the brand.

We had to get her a certain kind of solid black shoes with non slip soles
from this place. I have no clue what boot black is either but my shoes were
made of fabric. She still has one pair of hers. She ordered two but one
didn't fit well. She'll likely never wear the shoes again unless she gets a
job that would require such shoes. Mine were obviously not that but they
said until the mail order ones came to use whatever she had at home that
were closest to solid black. She had no black shoes whatever. I don't know
if this place gives a kickback or what. But they gave her a brochure for the
website and told her to order the shoes there.

I had given all of my black leather ones to a friend who needed them for her
work. I wasn't wearing them so... Thankfully I know several people who wear
my size so if shoes don't quite fit me or I don't like them, I usually have
a taker. We wear wide and it's very hard to find any wide width shoes around
here except for at Payless which IMO are mostly crap.

https://www.shoesforcrews.com/sfc3/i...rademark_-_USA

When I was working at K Mart, they were attempting to require us to buy
khaki pants and white shirts from some catalog. That never went through. But
they were trying hard on the pants thing by telling us that if we just went
out and bought our own khaki pants, the colors might not match. They did
tell us that we would all be required to wear white shirts so I did buy some
and gave them to a friend when I got married and moved away. Reason being, I
do not wear white. I would have done so had it been a job requirement. But
then they never did adopt the white shirt thing either.

> So, not an actual paying job. Way to pay attention to what your child was
> doing.

Wait! I think what you are actually saying by this is that I will never win
with you. Right? I am either being too permissive or not paying attention
or... Being too controlling. Is that right? No matter. I really don't care
what *you* or anyone else thinks. But...

She did get some pay. Two checks. And as I said before, if I gave the name
of the business, you'd know it. I just choose not to. They get enough bad
press through Yelp. I'd like to say it is just this location but some others
in this area aren't so great either.
>
>>> > You seem to be making things up. You people here are the ones
>>>> causing drama with your lala land where people can have jobs where they
>>>> can just use the phone and text whenever they feel like it.
>>>
> Gawd, Julie. You're the one spouting off nonsense again. Need to call
> home? Not a problem. That doesn't include calling everyone you know.

Are you kidding me? That would have been a problem with EVERY job that I
had. I'm not going to say that I never did it. I certainly wasn't a model
employee but at least I gave the impression of being one on many levels. And
I was lucky enough at most of the jobs that I did that they did involve
using the phone so I could often times easily make a call if I chose to.
But... I was not SUPPOSED to use the phone to call home at any of the jobs
that I held. Not any of them. None. And I don't think I would want to work
at a place where they said this would be okay. Why? Because that could
conceivably allow coworkers to abuse the priveledge.
>
> "She'd get dressed, drive to work, only to have them tell her that
> she wasn't needed that day."
> and:
> "When she tried to call ahead of time to see if she was needed, they told
> her that she wasn't allowed to call them."
>
> I call bullshit. Sounds like another Bothell mini-series to me.

Here's what I'd like to know, Jill. Why do you even care? This was a job
that she held some months ago and she was only employed by them for two
months. And when I say employed, I mean under contract with them. Not
necessarily physically working there. It's over and done with. The only
issue I had with it was that they were jacking her around. But I suppose in
the overall scheme of things it is good that something like this happened
when she was young and that she has parents who tell her things like, "Don't
let people jack you around!"

I didn't grow up in such a household. I won't get into the whole thing but I
will say that my dad actually took anger management classes. This was long
after I moved away. So... When I was growing up, the last thing I wanted to
do was suffer his wrath. And he always told me something to the effect of if
a boss or a teacher or whatever authority figure tells you to do something,
you do it and you don't question it. Just do it or in the case of an
employer, they will fire you.

I know you are about my age but I also know that when I point this out to
you, you'll probably claim that stuff like this couldn't possibly happen
where you are or that I'm making it up or whatever. But... When I first
started working, there were still a lot of big gaps in the workplace in
terms of equal rights for women. Yes, we were making strides. But I was
young and somewhat terrified of authority based on how I was raised and I
did allow myself to be pushed around and taken advantage of at work.

Thankfully, one of my friends who was from England, was not going to stand
for this. She and another friend took it upon themselves to check into our
rights and most of the rest of us backed them fully. And after I knew where
I really stood, I marched into the office and told my boss the reasons why I
should be made manager instead of the male he was going to give the job to.
He looked rather shocked but he did give me the job. I had found my voice
then, at least in terms of work.

I am still in contact with them although Pauline who has since changed her
name to Sara is no longer living in this state. Jay, is still looking out
for us and has been following things in regard to our pension. He's the one
who told me to get it now or maybe lose it. Not lose all of it and I won't
get into the particulars but I could have conceivably gotten less money had
I waited like I was going to do.

But even after all of that, I know there were times we were taken advantage
of. Like making us work for 10 or 15 minutes here and there off the clock.
Or not getting a coffee break. We all have to learn to pick our battles.
Life isn't fair. Plain and simple. And not all jobs are going to be hunky
dory perfect. But bottom line, if you want to eat, you do what you have to
do. Especially if you're not a college graduate or you live in an area where
good jobs are few and far between.

I just can't fathom why you and some others are seemingly so interested in
this and won't let it go? Just seems a bit weird.

"Doris Night" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 8 Aug 2016 17:45:15 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>>And you totally misread what I said. She WAS on the schedule so they
>>expected her to show up for work. But then when she did show up, they'd
>>say
>>that they decided they didn't need her so she should go home. That's when
>>I
>>told her that she should call first and confirm that she would in fact be
>>needed. But she was told that she could not do this. And no, I did not ask
>>the establishment about this. I know quite a few people who were employed
>>by
>>them. This is what they did.
>
> In Ontario, a shift has to be a minimum of 3 hours. If you are
> scheduled to work, you have to be paid for that amount of time.
> Goofing around by sending people home, as you described, isn't alowed.
> I'm surprised that the U.S. doesn't have similar labour regulations.

Well, it's not that way here. They certainly can send people home here,
although where I have worked, we had enough employees that it was easy
enough to find one that willingly wanted to go home. If we weren't getting
many sales, they'd just start asking around to see who wanted to leave.

As for the US, I don't think there are things in terms of employment that
cover the whole country. It is pretty much a state by state thing. For
instance, here in WA, restaurant workers must be paid minimum wage. That is
not the case in many other states. But here, farm workers under the age of
16 do not have to be paid minimum wage.

"Doris Night" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 8 Aug 2016 17:45:15 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>>And you totally misread what I said. She WAS on the schedule so they
>>expected her to show up for work. But then when she did show up, they'd
>>say
>>that they decided they didn't need her so she should go home. That's when
>>I
>>told her that she should call first and confirm that she would in fact be
>>needed. But she was told that she could not do this. And no, I did not ask
>>the establishment about this. I know quite a few people who were employed
>>by
>>them. This is what they did.
>
> In Ontario, a shift has to be a minimum of 3 hours. If you are
> scheduled to work, you have to be paid for that amount of time.
> Goofing around by sending people home, as you described, isn't alowed.
> I'm surprised that the U.S. doesn't have similar labour regulations.

I looked it up for you as I didn't know if things had changed. They haven't.

http://www.lni.wa.gov/WorkplaceRight...rs/default.asp

"There are no regulations regarding when and how workers are scheduled. A
business has the right to change a worker's schedule at any time, with or
without notice. Businesses are not required to give weekends or holidays
off."

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 08 Aug 2016 21:09:13 -0400, Doris Night wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 8 Aug 2016 17:45:15 -0700, "Julie Bove"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>And you totally misread what I said. She WAS on the schedule so they
>>>expected her to show up for work. But then when she did show up, they'd
>>>say
>>>that they decided they didn't need her so she should go home. That's when
>>>I
>>>told her that she should call first and confirm that she would in fact be
>>>needed. But she was told that she could not do this. And no, I did not
>>>ask
>>>the establishment about this. I know quite a few people who were employed
>>>by
>>>them. This is what they did.
>>
>> In Ontario, a shift has to be a minimum of 3 hours. If you are
>> scheduled to work, you have to be paid for that amount of time.
>> Goofing around by sending people home, as you described, isn't alowed.
>> I'm surprised that the U.S. doesn't have similar labour regulations.
>
> Most states have a law that say you need to be paid for a minimum
> amount of hours if you're scheduled to show up, but Planet Bove
> doesn't have such a law.

I have proven that we don't. This is for the state.

http://www.lni.wa.gov/workplacerights/

"There are no regulations regarding when and how workers are scheduled. A
business has the right to change a worker's schedule at any time, with or
without notice. Businesses are not required to give weekends or holidays
off."

And this:

"Is a business required to pay workers who show up for work?
No. If the workers show up for work, but the business has no work for them
and sends them home, there is no requirement for "show-up" pay. Workers must
be paid for actual hours worked. Businesses are not required to give prior
notice of a schedule change."

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 8 Aug 2016 20:36:59 -0700, Julie Bove wrote:
>
>> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Mon, 08 Aug 2016 21:09:13 -0400, Doris Night wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 8 Aug 2016 17:45:15 -0700, "Julie Bove"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>And you totally misread what I said. She WAS on the schedule so they
>>>>>expected her to show up for work. But then when she did show up, they'd
>>>>>say
>>>>>that they decided they didn't need her so she should go home. That's
>>>>>when
>>>>>I
>>>>>told her that she should call first and confirm that she would in fact
>>>>>be
>>>>>needed. But she was told that she could not do this. And no, I did not
>>>>>ask
>>>>>the establishment about this. I know quite a few people who were
>>>>>employed
>>>>>by
>>>>>them. This is what they did.
>>>>
>>>> In Ontario, a shift has to be a minimum of 3 hours. If you are
>>>> scheduled to work, you have to be paid for that amount of time.
>>>> Goofing around by sending people home, as you described, isn't alowed.
>>>> I'm surprised that the U.S. doesn't have similar labour regulations.
>>>
>>> Most states have a law that say you need to be paid for a minimum
>>> amount of hours if you're scheduled to show up, but Planet Bove
>>> doesn't have such a law.
>>
>> I have proven that we don't. This is for the state.
>>
>> http://www.lni.wa.gov...
>
> Yeah. I just said that.
>
> While you're here will you please confirm for us that tomorrow is
> Tuesday?
>
> -sw

Will this work?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP9DbEIm7ns

Or shall I get out my ephemeris?