 |
Must be your area. I was in Red Lobster a couple of weeks ago and the service was fantastic. Olive Garden on Sunday also offered fantastic service. Of course that might change with the added regulations they're facing because they'll have to raise prices and people will eat out less so they'll have to downsize their workforce.
Fire the manager, and get someone who can manage, no matter what the rules may be. If you can't serve the customers when they walk through the door, you shouldn't be in business.Quote:
Regulatory mandates flowing from federal health care reform may be the most visible, but the list also includes measures such as new mandatory paid leave provisions that require us to change the way we accommodate employees who need to take time off when they are ill and ever more unrealistic requirements regarding employee meal and rest breaks that, in California for example, force our employees to take breaks in the middle of serving lunch or dinner.
Bet a high paid hedge fund manager gets a break when he wants it, so why not a low paid service worker? You mean I have to wash dishes when I get the flu?
While I agree that regulation may require some creative solutions, and implementations, I am still waiting for specifics that make them worth scraping. Maybe it's the business model itself that can stand some tweaking, like eliminating crazy bonus pay outs, or golden parachutes that are unearned. For sure you cannot expect the workers to make up for executives greed, and over reach.
I guess you missed the part where restaurants operate on a low profit margin.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Hello again,
If I wasn't clear before, I'll try again.
I've been in business for 30 years. There's NEVER been CERTAINTY. Taxes have gone up and they've gone down. Regulations have been instituted, and they've been revised and replaced. Republicans have been elected and so have Democrats.
NONE of that guided ANY of my business decisions. Those costs, WHATEVER they were, were part of the normal business operating environment. I incorporated them into the cost of doing business, and made sure that I charged MORE than that.
I was able to DO it. LOTS of people were NOT. Guess who they blamed? Themselves?? Nahhh... It was regulations, it was the health inspector, it was the union, it was taxes, it was ANYBODY but me.
excon
That's what I've been saying all along/ They aren't just the cost of doing business, they're passed on to me. The less disposable income I have because you keep raising your prices for things I need, the less I spend at places like restaurants which have a low profit margin already.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
SOMEONE pays the price for over-regulation, ex, usually those who can afford it least. You do know that Obama wants energy prices to "necessarily skyrocket" by way of regulation. That way we can pay through the nose for electricity to charge the $40,000 Chevy Volt we can't afford that may or may not catch fire on us. See how good regulations are?
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I don't think that's what you were saying. I think you were saying that people wouldn't get hired - not that stuff costs more.
But, be that as it may, you're right this time. ALL the costs of doing business get passed on. Are regulations a part of that cost? Sure. Are they a BIGGER part of that cost than they ever were? NO!
A guy that's not doing as well as I am, might NOT agree with me. The sniveler from Red Lobster sounds like one of those.
excon
Actually I've said both, but in relation to the one statement of yours I just quoted, I have been saying those "costs of doing business" are passed on all along. Glad you finally acknowledged it in so many words.
The point with the Red Lobster guy is here is an Obama donor and supporter admitting over regulation makes it difficult to plan. If he doesn't understand how all the new regulations are going to affect his business he can't plan, and if you can't plan you have uncertainty. Without confidence in what to expect in the way of compliance companies are going to be hesitant to hire. It's just a fact, ex, it's HAPPENING and people on both sides that have to deal with these regulations in real life say the same thing, so I don't know what further proof you need that over regulating hinders economic growth.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
All of what your guy said is true.. There IS no certainly. Apparently, that STOPS him. But, believing as I did, that there NEVER WILL be certainty, it didn't stop me. I either go NOW, or I should NEVER go. I went.
Up till now we've been talking about regulations... The notion of "over regulating" is in the eye of the beholder. Like I've said a few times here, those who can't compete look for ANYONE or ANYTHING to blame but themselves..
excon
Then let's just regulate the hell out of everything.
Here you go, this is the disturbing mindset of the fool in the oval office. That Keystone pipeline that could be creating a bunch of jobs, helping free us from middle east oil and giving a boost to our friends to the north? Extending unemployment benefits will create more jobs than Keystone, according to our really, really smart president.
Okay what regulations would you do away with? If regulations are bad, then name them. That's my point, everybody has a grief about them, and whose choice is it to go into a business with a low profit margin?
Fire the guy for having a cold if that's what you want, or the pregnant female in false labor, that will solve the problems right?
Or let the businesses run things the way they want to, and if your child gets asthma so what? And who needs a break when you have a lunch crowd? That's right and make government smaller so businesses can get as big as they please, and do as they please.
Yeah the cost gets passed on to the consumer, so what, then he needs a raise to afford what ever businesses are selling. What a cycle, and evidently you think that's the way it should be. I guess that's why repubs don't want any kind of agency that protects consumers because that's bad for business, because an informed consumer can make a choice and not just fall for the sales pitch.
No customers and you capitalist are out of business. Doesn't matter about that profit margin then.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
You confuse a negotiating position with a policy decision.. Watch.. He'll trade the pipeline for getting the middle class tax cuts. That way everybody wins. Ain't Barack wonderful?
excon
Environmental impact of the oil shale industry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaQuote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Quote:
At best, the direct combustion of oil shales produces carbon emissions similar to those from the lowest form of coal, lignite, at 2.15 moles CO2/MJ,[2] an energy source which is also politically contentious due to its high emission levels.[17][18] For both power generation and oil extraction, the CO2 emissions can be reduced by better utilization of waste heat from the product streams.
Asbestos for insulation was a great idea too! Until all the cancer victims showed up.Make money before the science is known, or the regulator shows up, then repeal health care and drop all the cancer victims, now that's a great business model from the guys who defend low taxes for the rich, but not the middle class. Or what's left of it, but why let a good hostage go to waste?Quote:
Currently, the in-situ process is the most attractive proposition due to the reduction in standard surface environmental problems. However, in-situ processes do involve possible significant environmental costs to aquifers, especially since in-situ methods may require ice-capping or some other form of barrier to restrict the flow of the newly gained oil into the groundwater aquifers. However, after the removal of the freeze wall these methods can still cause groundwater contamination as the hydraulic conductivity of the remaining shale increases allowing groundwater to flow through and leach salts from the newly toxic aquifer
I have been known to confuse Chris Johnson with a reliable running back, but I'm smart enough to know you can create more jobs by building a pipeline than by keeping people unemployed. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
There are some states that don't agree with you on that.
Proposal for 2nd pipeline sparks opposition ? USATODAY.com
Opposition raised to proposed oil sands pipeline | Tulsa WorldQuote:
-- Along the pipeline route, landowners are fighting eminent domain lawsuits as TransCanada tries to collect the easements it needs to begin construction. The company has been criticized as presumptuous for taking landowners to court before obtaining a federal permit.
Have we forgotten the gulf spill already? Or that no oil spills have ever been cleaned up on American soil? Think Valdez, and how that worked out. That's was clean oil compared to this shale oil. This isn't fed oppositions, it's the states that the pipeline runs through.Quote:
BP, the company at the forefront of the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, is one of the oil sands producers.
But even its stockholders have expressed concern about investing in oil sands, according to news reports.
Last week, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said an environmental-impact study on the pipeline was inadequate and did not address environmental or safety concerns in the event of spills.
Republican use of this hostage will bite them in the butt, so why do it, in the name of jobs? I don't think so! Looks like Obama is suckering you guys again. Maybe Bonehead and the house should get out more, or learn to read, because those regulations, and lawsuits have to be reconciled.
Regulations in my industry are causing owers of small operations to close shop... a job loser .
The business is being consolidated by larger companies . But these companies are not necessarily hiring . Instead where they might hire they instead are squeezing what productivity they can from their work force.
The regs have also increased the costs of the products which means fewer sales .
You see ;I may not be an owner ;but the effect of OVER regulations are apparent for all to see.
I have the FDA to deal with . They can't seem to decide if I make drugs or foods. So they take the worse of both and consolidate them into a composite of conflicting regulations that none understand . What we are left with instead of is inpectors that use their own interpretations to enforce the regs in an ad hoc and inconsistent basis . One inspector that may have been in the drug enforcement side before using one standard ;another coming in the next round with a completely different understanding of the regs.
Let's see if we can bring this to something many of us understand . NYC has a long tradition of cart vendors selling foods that the city is famous for . People actually travel to the city to eat things like "dirty water hot dogs " or pretzels and nuts roasted on charcoal .
Now someone in the city thinks it would be a good idea to rate these carts with the same standards that the sit down fancy eateries need to comply with. Obviously these carts will never comply... and when people start seeing the poorer ratings (NYC uses color coding) ;they will stop going to the cart vendors .
That's not fair making street vendors use FDA approved food, and washing their hands before serving the public.
But Mitt will make them part of a national chain and fire the b#stards, and take the money. That what he does for a living.
Be a dishwasher, and keep your hands clean for a living, and don't worry about the regulations.
Duplicate post.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Make that a janitor, my bad, Newt is the new flavor for repubs.
Some states agree with Obama that unemployment creates more jobs than pipeline construction? That's just really weird.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Tal. It's your simplistic retort doesn't wash. What this really means is that the vendors will have to pay up to the right inspector . What it won't do is improve the quality of the food . What it will do is force some of these vendors out of business... which is what the sit down restaurants want anyway.
Until you get specific Tom, and stop sighting the broad regulations, then what do you expect but a simple retort?
Science and facts is something we can look into, not ways to eliminate the competition. That's what consumers do, make choice about who to spend their money on.
I believe in rules or regulations, but which ones are you saying stops YOU from making money and why? And I think business has an input, but NOT the final say, nor be responsible for application, or oversight, because that ALWAYS means NO accountability, and NO responsibility when something does go wrong.
Let me be specific then. When Palin says drill baby drill, did she make anybody clean up a 20 year old environmental mess from Valdez when she was governor?? Its still screwed up!!
Umm Palin directed her AG to file and amicus in favor of the Valdez victims . SCOTUS decided in favor of them in 2008 while she was still Guv.
The oceans great ability to clean up biodegradable material on it's own along with some human intervention has cleaned up most of Prince William Sound . Oh I'm sure there is still some residue but you could hardly call it "screwed up" . It is recovering .
Exxon has requested ,through FOIA ,the results of studies done by the government on the impact of the spill . Both the EPA and the Dept of Commerce have refused to release them . Why ? What are they trying to hide from Exxon ?
Now what does any of this prove? That it's unsafe to transport oil by ship ? Well then it seems to me that a pipeline would be the solution... no ? Or are you in favor of just stopping all oil production and transportation world wide ? I think that is what you long for .Maybe humans should just find a cave to live in and go back to eating moss and insects .
Are you raving again? Tom. Mention a disaster and you go into overdrive. Go worship at altar of BIG OIL of you wish but spare us the diatribe
I'll take it then that you want to heat your home and drive your car with kangaroo dung .
Why can't we use science and technology to to make these things safe and effective, as well as efficient? Less profits, but a better bang for the buck. Start with scrutiny of plans for oil spills, or accidents, BEFORE we allow for the operation to take place. I man a real plan, based on science and resources, not a power point presentation, or a million dollar valve that they proved didn't work before the bought it. Or a simple as keeping a drunk captain from behind the wheel.
The same thing applies for banking and washing dishes. Even in a free market, capitalistic society, rules and procedure, need not be compromised for a few extra bucks. Foxes are lousy watch dogs for hen houses, so why trust them?
You can't plan for the unknown. Hulls of tankers have been double lined since Valdez. The valve was not up to standards and there was clear neglegence from both BP and the regulators who allowed it. I've written a lot about how it was in fact the abandonment of lending standards dictated by the regulators that led to the banking crisis.
I refuse to let you paint us as being proponents of no regulations . Being opposed to Over regulation is to favor the elimination of stupid and unnecessary regulations .
We don't rely on Alaskan oil Tom in fact we use Coal, you know deep green, directly and as a source of gas and have our own oil wells where oil is piped to the mainland, so we are a little further ahead than you think. Sadly there are not enough Kangaroos in the world for us to experiment with kangaroo dung but when the oil and gas run out we can use Uranium.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
This administration has been doing just that while he strengthen and added others.
Don't take it personally when I repeat what the right keeps saying, because rules and policies are NEVER articulated, or explained, just complained about, so what should I do? Take the rights word for it? Heck I don't take the lefts word for anything either. I research it myself.
We can complain about differences but we also have to acknowledge similarity. You ain't that far right Tom, and that's the problem, I doubt you would be seen as a true republican by those in your party.
Look, I know when things don't work out, and accidents happen but there is enough blame to go around to everyone. That's why BP is suing Haliburton now.
Hello again,
Here's a specific regulation we can talk about...
There's this industry called the for profit college industry... It includes the ones who train dental assistants, and massage therapists. Their students are eligible for student loans too.
The problem is, the colleges are lying to students about their job prospects and they're reneging on the promise that they would HELP students get jobs... The industry produces SCHLOCK education, NO jobs, and costs taxpayers BILLIONS...
Obama wanted to REGULATE them to the degree that if they DIDN'T stop lying to their students, they'd lose their student loan eligibility.
Personally, although these regulations MIGHT cause some LOUSY schools to close, and MIGHT cause some people to lose their jobs, it would STILL be a regulation that I would support.
But, the lobbyists won, and the TAXPAYERS lost.. I have NO idea why this would make Republicans happy.
excon
What's you problem Ex if these schools close, we had heaps of this sort of operation in cooking, security, hairdressing and a number of other lines of employment, mainly trapping international students. We had no problem shutting them down and our student intake dropped 100,000 a year. Who knows where they went, USA I guess
I guess the elite Ivy League schools the President hails from always lives up to their promises. I am certain the multitude of state run institutions that get mega bucks from the government do not.
I am familiar with both institutions that are cited in the article... U of Phoenix ,and Kaplan .
The U of Phoenix provides online course work ,their degrees are credible and legit .
Scores of students coming from under preforming public school systems have benefitted from tutoring from the Kaplan system . The before and after SAT scores are proof of that .
My own opinion is that I favor less overall aid to college systems . It horribly distorts tuition fees . Without all the assistance I am sure tuition costs would drop and innovative schools like the U of Phoenix would prosper .
Throwing the baby out with the bath water?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
It's the students who need the assistance , but some oversight would be nice to rein in the fees they charge. While I agree that its an excellent system to be trained in something where there are job opportunities, the best ones partner with businesses and corporations to not only provide employment services, but a credible curriculum that meets the needs of the businesses that support them.Quote:
Quote by Tom,
My own opinion is that I favor less overall aid to college systems . It horribly distorts tuition fees . Without all the assistance I am sure tuition costs would drop and innovative schools like the U of Phoenix would prosper .
But a lot are popping up around the country that rip off students that haven't researched where they apply to. They are not just viable options for young people, but a lot of older ones who want something better than the job they have.
Its like anything else that turns a buck, somebody will always try to game the system, one way or another. Heck, if banks and businesses can make a profit when there are no rules or regulations strong enough, or smart enough, to stop them, what makes us think a teacher won't?
No just throwing the shoonks and people who charge big money for student visa applications out of the systemQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Ahh, seems we have the same thing going here as we have many businesses that are trying to get increases in visa application approvals for talent they swear they can't find here.
First it was Americans don't want to do the work that immigrants do (cheaper, I might add), now its Americans aren't smart enough for the jobs they have to fill.
Wonder what's next?
You can't find the talent because you need a diploma to do a meniel job the answer lies in changing the structure of the high school system so it becomes oriented to pre-skilling at least part of the future work force.
What's next is you will invent a way of the computers doing all the work and the population will play video games all day, oh wait, that day has already arrived, what's next might be depopulation
The problem is selective education, along class lines. While technology has made the need for less humans for specific work, it has opened up more need for the technical training to understand and function in a more technical society. Video games are but a tool of that reality, and a fundamental training venue. Look at the way the need for more Doctors, nurses, and technicians has grown in the health care field.
That but a small example of the areas where computer skills are needed, and a diploma is but a start. If you look at it that way you would see that there is more opportunity, than people to do what's necessary to have an efficiently progressive evolving society.
Until we refine the business model to reflect that evolution, and use more people working less hours, we cannot achieve that efficientcy, and must have a nanny state that grows, as economic circulation is cut off from parts of the population.
Eliminating those parts, as they do in China, is in my opinion, not the way to go. Nor is restricting reproductive alternatives, or choices of part of the population that needs it the most.
Well Tal you won't get employers signing on to more people working less hours, what they want is less people working more hours. Computers have made some more productive usually at the expense of lower end jobs.
So you think we should all be tech jocks but then no one wants to do the other work, so you have to be selective about who you train and for what. I know it's not democratic but it isn't a perfect world, there are some who have to be s**t kickers, even if you call them sanitary engineers but if we pay well for meniel tasks then more will want to do them, sort of turns the ideas around, instead of paying CEOs millions we should pay them no more that the lowest paid in their organisation. We would see a lot of better paid jobs very quickly and a very selective selection process. No dills allowed
What your society did was create the situation in China, you exported all the meniel tasks and expected to keep all the high paid interesting jobs. It didn't work because other people are smart too. The Chinese were smart, they got the work and used it to transform their economy, Soon there will be more chinese millionaires than there are in the US and they will be looking for someone to do the low end work Keep your eye on Africa
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:18 PM. |